Mamata Banerjee's Supreme Court Appearance: A Day of Legal and Political Drama
In a rare and high-profile legal proceeding, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally appeared before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in her state. The courtroom was packed with lawyers and media, all eager to witness the sitting Chief Minister make submissions under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging violations of fundamental rights.
A Quiet Wait and a Strategic Entrance
Banerjee arrived at the Supreme Court at 10:05 AM, with security heightened in anticipation of her visit. Despite her vehicle being parked near the stairs to Courtroom 1, she opted for a longer walk through the corridors, greeting lawyers before quietly taking a seat in the visitors' gallery. She waited patiently for about three hours before her case was mentioned just before the lunch break.
Allegations of Targeting and 'Bulldozing'
During her interventions, Banerjee accused the Election Commission of specifically targeting West Bengal, using strong language such as "bulldozing" its people. She argued that the SIR process, intended to update voter lists, was being rushed within three months instead of the usual two years, leading to widespread deletions. Banerjee cited examples of name mismatches due to Bengali-to-English translations, such as "Dutta" versus "Datta," and cases of families being removed after relocation.
She emphasized, "What was the hurry to do what takes two years, only within three months," and urged the bench to "save democracy." Banerjee also claimed that micro-observers from BJP-ruled states were appointed to oversee the process, further alleging bias against Bengali voters.
Courtroom Exchanges and Legal Arguments
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, engaged in a mix of serious discussion and light banter. When Banerjee offered to explain regional nuances, the CJI humorously responded, "Can there be any doubt about that?" This broke the ice, allowing her to delve into specific grievances. She spoke of "justice crying behind the door" for ordinary voters and highlighted issues like migration and name discrepancies.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the state government, pointed out logical discrepancies in the draft list due to translation errors. The Court issued a notice to the Election Commission and scheduled the next hearing for February 9, also directing that the matter be heard alongside another petition concerning hostilities faced by ECI officials in West Bengal.
Political Rhetoric and Broader Accusations
Banerjee's submissions occasionally shifted to political rhetoric, as she questioned why states like Assam were not subjected to similar revisions. She referred to the Election Commission as the "WhatsApp Commission" and accused it of violating Supreme Court orders by not accepting Aadhaar cards as valid documents in West Bengal, unlike in other states.
She stated, "They only targeted Bengal on the eve of elections... After 24 years, what was the hurry?" Banerjee also raised concerns about over 100 deaths, including Booth Level Officers (BLOs), allegedly due to harassment during the process.
Judicial Response and Future Proceedings
The CJI acknowledged the issues raised, emphasizing the need to ensure no genuine voter is excluded due to minor discrepancies. He instructed the Election Commission to be more sensitive in handling name mismatches. However, the Court refrained from commenting on the constitutional validity of the SIR process, as it has reserved judgment on related petitions.
This case underscores the intense legal and political battles surrounding electoral integrity in India, with Banerjee's personal involvement highlighting the stakes for West Bengal ahead of upcoming elections.
