Mamata Banerjee Argues Case Before Supreme Court, Challenges West Bengal Voter Roll Revision
New Delhi – In an unprecedented move, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally argued her case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in her state. Banerjee, a trained lawyer, is reportedly the first sitting Chief Minister in India to argue a case in person before the apex court.
The Chief Minister’s petition seeks to halt the ongoing SIR process, which she alleges is flawed and unfairly targets voters in West Bengal. She questioned the documentation requirements, stating that the Election Commission of India (ECI) is rejecting Aadhaar cards and demanding additional documents, creating hardship for citizens.
During the hearing, Banerjee expressed concerns that living individuals were being wrongly declared dead during the revision process. She told the court that the SIR exercise appeared focused on deleting voters rather than including eligible citizens. “SIR is only for deletion, not for inclusion,” she stated, according to reports.
Banerjee also raised concerns about discrepancies in how voter information is being handled, specifically regarding women who change their addresses after marriage. She argued that changes in address should not automatically lead to names being removed from the rolls.
The Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, heard Banerjee’s arguments. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that no eligible voter is excluded from the electoral process. CJI Kant suggested that responsible officers could be deputed to the ECI to verify documents and rectify any errors, particularly those stemming from translation issues from Bengali.
Banerjee also alleged that over 100 people, including Booth Level Officers (BLOs), had died or been hospitalized due to the stress and difficulties caused by the SIR process. She questioned why West Bengal was being singled out, asking why similar scrutiny wasn’t being applied in other states like Assam.
The ECI’s counsel reportedly responded that the state government was not cooperating with the revision process. However, CJI Kant intervened, stating, “Ma’am has come all the way to say something.”
Regarding the use of Aadhaar cards, the Chief Justice explained that the court had reserved judgment on the validity of using Aadhaar for voter registration and could not comment on its admissibility at this time. He noted that the legal implications of incorporating Aadhaar into the Representation of the People Act were still under consideration.
Banerjee argued that electoral registration officers have been stripped of their power, with the ECI superseding their authority. She also questioned the timing of the revision, pointing out that it was taking place during festival and harvest seasons when many people were away from their homes.
The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal in response to Banerjee’s plea. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on February 9, 2026.
Banerjee, who completed her law degree from Jogesh Chandra Choudhury College of Law, Calcutta, had not actively practiced law since 2003. She filed an interlocutory application seeking permission to argue her own case and was granted that permission by the court.
