Bengal SIR: When Mamata Banerjee spoke to her voters, through Supreme Court
The West Bengal CM—trained in law—arguing her own petition against the electoral roll revision was as much political communication meant to resonate far beyond the courtroom
It was an extraordinary moment: a chief minister, trained in law, arguing her own petition before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant. What unfolded was not merely a legal argument but political communication meant to resonate far beyond the courtroom.
Mamata’s core contention was simple but stark. She told the bench, “We are not getting justice anywhere. I personally wrote six letters, but never got a reply from the Election Commission.”
That line encapsulated both the grievance she brought and the justification for her personal appearance. Her argument was that the SIR process had become predominantly about deletions rather than inclusions, disproportionately affecting ordinary voters in Bengal and threatening their ability to cast their ballots.
Building on this, Mamata painted the SIR as an exercise targeting Bengal’s people. “They have targeted West Bengal to bulldoze West Bengal people; why not Assam? Why only Bengal?” she asked, invoking the names of states and underscoring what she said was differential treatment.
Much of her argument drew on real examples—women who had changed their surnames on marriage, families who shifted homes, and poor people whose names were flagged as “logical discrepancies” for minor mismatches—all of which, she said, led to their deletion from the rolls despite valid documentation.
Mamata repeatedly highlighted procedural anomalies, questioning why in Bengal documents like Aadhaar were initially accepted but then rejected by micro-observers, while in other states such records were treated differently. “Sir, you had allowed the Aadhaar card to be used for verification. The West Bengal people were so happy with your order. But now the Election Commission is violating the court order,” she said.
Unusually for courtroom rhetoric, she also summoned emotional imagery: “When justice is crying behind the door then we thought we are not getting justice anywhere,” she told the court, a line rooted in her broader plea that the SIR drive had become a source of distress for women, farmers, migrants and poor families.
These were not abstract claims; they were tied to widely circulated reports of long queues, denied documents and allegations of deaths linked to logistical pressure.
The bench, while recognising the emotional intensity of Mamata’s submissions, focused on the legal contours of the dispute. The CJI noted the strict timeline governing the final publication of the electoral rolls and emphasised that ensuring no innocent voter was excluded was paramount. In doing so, the bench issued formal notices to the Election Commission and the chief electoral officer, asking them to respond in writing by the next hearing date.
Mamata ended her arguments with a plea that straddled law and democratic symbolism: “I will save democracy,” she said, appealing to the court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens against what she portrayed as systemic disenfranchisement. That line encapsulated her broader strategy: to frame the legal challenge not solely as one laid by her government, but as a constitutional plea on behalf of West Bengal’s electorate.
From a strictly legal standpoint, many of her arguments did not introduce entirely new points beyond those already recorded in filings by her lawyers and allied petitioners. But by speaking in person, Mamata transformed technical objections into a narrative of democratic urgency.
For her core supporters—rural voters, women affected by naming mismatches, and families anxious about their electoral status—her words carried immediate political resonance. Observers noted that while justice might not be achieved with the clarity she demanded, Mamata’s public display of defiance before the apex court was itself a marker of political intent.
Critics, however, will argue that framing electoral administration as targeted harassment risks deepening institutional mistrust and politicising what is meant to be a neutral exercise. The Election Commission has rejected claims of bias, maintained that the SIR is lawful, and defended its use of “logical discrepancy” categories as necessary to clean the rolls.
The court’s continued involvement underscores that this dispute sits at the intersection of administration and politics, a contested terrain that will likely shape both the legal outcomes and the electoral narrative ahead of the West Bengal polls.
Mamata will attend in person the case hearing on February 9 as well. This exercise is as much about signalling as about statutes. Mamata’s choice to address the Supreme Court directly ensured her voice reached a national audience as she appealed on behalf of voters she described as overlooked and unheard. Whether that translates into judicial relief or political advantage remains an open question, but the day will be remembered as a rare moment when political leadership and legal contestation converged at India’s highest court.
Subscribe to India Today Magazine
It was an extraordinary moment: a chief minister, trained in law, arguing her own petition before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant. What unfolded was not merely a legal argument but political communication meant to resonate far beyond the courtroom.
Mamata’s core contention was simple but stark. She told the bench, “We are not getting justice anywhere. I personally wrote six letters, but never got a reply from the Election Commission.”
That line encapsulated both the grievance she brought and the justification for her personal appearance. Her argument was that the SIR process had become predominantly about deletions rather than inclusions, disproportionately affecting ordinary voters in Bengal and threatening their ability to cast their ballots.
Building on this, Mamata painted the SIR as an exercise targeting Bengal’s people. “They have targeted West Bengal to bulldoze West Bengal people; why not Assam? Why only Bengal?” she asked, invoking the names of states and underscoring what she said was differential treatment.
Much of her argument drew on real examples—women who had changed their surnames on marriage, families who shifted homes, and poor people whose names were flagged as “logical discrepancies” for minor mismatches—all of which, she said, led to their deletion from the rolls despite valid documentation.
Mamata repeatedly highlighted procedural anomalies, questioning why in Bengal documents like Aadhaar were initially accepted but then rejected by micro-observers, while in other states such records were treated differently. “Sir, you had allowed the Aadhaar card to be used for verification. The West Bengal people were so happy with your order. But now the Election Commission is violating the court order,” she said.
Unusually for courtroom rhetoric, she also summoned emotional imagery: “When justice is crying behind the door then we thought we are not getting justice anywhere,” she told the court, a line rooted in her broader plea that the SIR drive had become a source of distress for women, farmers, migrants and poor families.
These were not abstract claims; they were tied to widely circulated reports of long queues, denied documents and allegations of deaths linked to logistical pressure.
The bench, while recognising the emotional intensity of Mamata’s submissions, focused on the legal contours of the dispute. The CJI noted the strict timeline governing the final publication of the electoral rolls and emphasised that ensuring no innocent voter was excluded was paramount. In doing so, the bench issued formal notices to the Election Commission and the chief electoral officer, asking them to respond in writing by the next hearing date.
Mamata ended her arguments with a plea that straddled law and democratic symbolism: “I will save democracy,” she said, appealing to the court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens against what she portrayed as systemic disenfranchisement. That line encapsulated her broader strategy: to frame the legal challenge not solely as one laid by her government, but as a constitutional plea on behalf of West Bengal’s electorate.
From a strictly legal standpoint, many of her arguments did not introduce entirely new points beyond those already recorded in filings by her lawyers and allied petitioners. But by speaking in person, Mamata transformed technical objections into a narrative of democratic urgency.
For her core supporters—rural voters, women affected by naming mismatches, and families anxious about their electoral status—her words carried immediate political resonance. Observers noted that while justice might not be achieved with the clarity she demanded, Mamata’s public display of defiance before the apex court was itself a marker of political intent.
Critics, however, will argue that framing electoral administration as targeted harassment risks deepening institutional mistrust and politicising what is meant to be a neutral exercise. The Election Commission has rejected claims of bias, maintained that the SIR is lawful, and defended its use of “logical discrepancy” categories as necessary to clean the rolls.
The court’s continued involvement underscores that this dispute sits at the intersection of administration and politics, a contested terrain that will likely shape both the legal outcomes and the electoral narrative ahead of the West Bengal polls.
Mamata will attend in person the case hearing on February 9 as well. This exercise is as much about signalling as about statutes. Mamata’s choice to address the Supreme Court directly ensured her voice reached a national audience as she appealed on behalf of voters she described as overlooked and unheard. Whether that translates into judicial relief or political advantage remains an open question, but the day will be remembered as a rare moment when political leadership and legal contestation converged at India’s highest court.
Subscribe to India Today Magazine