Bengal SIR Supreme Court Hearing Highlights: Election Commission is WhatsApp Commission, Mamata tells Supreme Court

After presenting her arguments challenging the SIR exercise in West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee headed to the airport to return to Kolkata. The court has issued a notice to the Election Commission of India in response to her plea, directing the poll body to file its reply by February 10.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sharply criticised the Election Commission during the Supreme Court hearing, calling it the “WhatsApp Commission.”

She alleged that the commission was responsible for mass deletions of voter names and claimed that Bengal was being unfairly targeted in the ongoing SIR process. “The Election Commission… sorry, the WhatsApp Commission… is doing all this. People’s names are being deleted. Bengal is being targeted,” she told the court.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Election Commission of India in response to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s plea challenging the SIR process in the state. The ECI has been asked to file its reply by February 10.

The court also directed the West Bengal government to provide a list of Class 2 officers available for deputation in the revision exercise. Mamata Banerjee told the bench that Bengal was being unfairly targeted and urged the court to intervene to protect the democratic rights of the people.

The Election Commission of India told the Supreme Court that the West Bengal government was not cooperating with the SIR process. Officials claimed that the state was deputing lower-level staff, including Class 3 officers and Anganwadi workers, who lacked the authority to verify documents, necessitating the appointment of micro-observers.

Solicitor General of India added that the allegations against the EC were being raised with undue hostility, reiterating that the state authorities were not extending the required support to ensure the proper conduct of the revision process.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee questioned why her state alone was being singled out for such scrutiny, asking why similar measures were not applied to Assam or other northeastern states. Banerjee highlighted these points to underline what she described as the disproportionate and politically motivated targeting of her state ahead of elections.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee told the Supreme Court that powers traditionally exercised by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and Assistant EROs had effectively been sidelined, with “micro-observers” now playing a decisive role in the SIR process. She alleged that around 3,800 such observers, many from BJP-ruled states, had been deployed and were able to recommend deletions from Election Commission offices.

Banerjee claimed that in the first phase alone, nearly 58 lakh names were marked as “declared dead.” She said many women had been removed from the rolls, calling the exercise “anti-women.” She further alleged that domicile certificates and other government-issued documents were not being accepted in many cases.

Responding to the concerns, the Chief Justice of India observed that, if necessary, the court could consider directing that every notice be formally authorised by the Booth Level Officer (BLO), reinforcing accountability in the process. Banerjee maintained that the deletions were being driven primarily by micro-observers rather than local electoral officials.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee told the Supreme Court that the ongoing SIR exercise was effectively being used as a tool for mass deletions rather than genuine verification. She argued that routine life changes were being flagged as “mismatches” or “logical discrepancies.” For instance, she said, when a woman adopts her husband’s surname after marriage or moves to her in-laws’ home, it is marked as a discrepancy. Similarly, people who relocate for work are also being listed under discrepancy mapping, which she claimed is leading to deletions.

Banerjee said residents of Bengal had welcomed the court’s earlier direction to accept documents such as Aadhaar cards, domicile certificates and government housing papers. However, she alleged that despite this, Bengal alone was being singled out ahead of elections.

Questioning the urgency of the exercise, she asked why a process that could have been conducted over two years was compressed into four months. She added that notices were issued during peak harvest and festive seasons, when many people were away from their registered addresses, making it harder for them to respond.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee sought the court’s permission to speak during the hearing, saying she wished to explain the situation as someone who belongs to the state. The Chief Justice of India acknowledged her request, remarking that there was no doubt about her connection to West Bengal, after which Banerjee thanked the Bench for allowing her to speak.

Banerjee said the issue went beyond legal arguments, adding that she had written six letters to the Election Commission of India but had received no response. She said she was not speaking as a political leader but as an ordinary person, claiming that people were not getting justice and that “justice is crying behind closed doors.”

In response, the CJI noted that the State of West Bengal had already filed a petition and was being represented by some of the country’s senior-most lawyers. He observed that an experienced legal team, including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Shyam Divan, was assisting the court in the matter.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, told the Supreme Court that more than half of the cases flagged under the “logical discrepancy” category involved minor name variations or spelling mismatches.

He cited examples to illustrate the issue, saying that in one case, the father’s name in the 2002 records included “Kumar” as a middle name, which did not appear in the 2025 record. In another instance, the father’s name “Alauddin Khan” was recorded in Bengali without the “Kh” sound, leading to a discrepancy.

Responding to the submissions, the Chief Justice of India sought clarification, asking whether the issue in such cases was essentially one of spelling differences.

The Chief Justice of India referred to instances of name mismatches, asking whether the court was dealing with cases where surnames were spelled differently — such as “Datta” and “Dutta,” or “Sharma” and “Sarma.”

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, responded that these were precisely the kinds of real-life examples voters were facing on the ground.

The CJI, however, remarked that directing the withdrawal of notices at this stage would be impractical, as the notices had already been issued.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, told the Supreme Court that notices issued to voters must contain at least a brief explanation so individuals understand why their names have been flagged.

Without a clear reason, he argued, people would be left in the dark about why they were placed on the list.

The Chief Justice of India responded that the concern about informing voters of the reasons was valid. However, he noted that the court had already addressed the manner in which such communication should take place, observing that the published list was not the only form of intimation and that individual notices sent to voters were expected to spell out the reasons.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee submitted that several documents included in the approved list of proofs are allegedly not being accepted during the SIR process.

She also raised objections to what she described as a non-statutory category of “logical discrepancy” being used to issue notices to lakhs of voters. Banerjee urged the court to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose specific reasons for flagging each voter and issuing notices.

According to her submissions, while notices mention basic details such as the voter’s name, age, and gender, they often only carry the abbreviation “DM” — stated to mean “discrepancy in mapping” — without clearly explaining the nature of the discrepancy.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the West Bengal government, while Senior Advocate Shyam Divan represented Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee as the Bengal Special Intensive Revision (SIR) matter was taken up in the Supreme Court.

As the hearing began, Mamata Banerjee and Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee moved to the front row of the courtroom. Divan informed the bench that a short note had been filed on Banerjee’s behalf seeking urgent directions.

He submitted that the application was in furtherance of the directions issued by the court on January 19, 2026, and requested that it be considered on priority.

Counsel noted that the morning’s sequence had indicated it would be taken up after Item 16, asking whether it would be heard soon. The Chief Justice of India responded, “Just wait… only two more matters are left, then it will be taken up.”

During the proceedings, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee rose from her seat at the back and moved closer to the podium to address the Bench. Her legal team, including senior advocates Shaym Divan and Gopal Sankarnaryanan, took positions at the front row near the podium, ready to present arguments once the matter is called.

Proceedings related to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee are likely to be taken up after lunch, after the Supreme Court bench revised its schedule and decided to sit for the entire day.

According to the revised cause list, the sequence of matters in Courtroom C1 has been changed. The bench will now hear item numbers 1 to 5, followed by item 35, then items 6 to 16, and thereafter items 40 and 41. These matters will be taken up first, after which the remaining cases will be heard.

Sources said the Mamata Banerjee-related matter is expected to be listed in the later part of the schedule, making it likely to be heard post-lunch.

Visuals of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee meeting advocates in the Supreme Court's corridor ahead of the hearing in the Bengal SIR case.

The Trinamool Congress has outlined the main reliefs sought by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in the Supreme Court in connection with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Her plea urges that the 2025 voter list be used without introducing fresh changes ahead of the Assembly elections in the state. It also asks the court to ensure that voters are not called for hearings over minor issues such as spelling errors.

The petition seeks directions from the Election Commission to make public the names of around 1.4 crore voters marked as “disputed,” and to accept Aadhaar as sufficient proof of identity in discrepancy cases.

It further calls for a halt to what it describes as mass deletions of voters through bulk Form-7 entries and for the withdrawal of 8,100 external micro-observers deployed in West Bengal’s electoral process.
 

As she entered the Supreme Court, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee was heard telling members of her team, “I shall sit behind, right behind,” suggesting she would take a seat quietly during the proceedings.

Observers also noted a visual detail that drew attention. During her recent meeting with the Election Commission, Banerjee had worn a black shawl, and members of her delegation, including those presented as affected by the SIR process, were similarly dressed. She arrived at the Supreme Court carrying a black stole, a choice some see as symbolically consistent with her earlier appearance.