New Delhi: West Bengal Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee on Wednesday created a rare moment in India’s constitutional history by appearing in person before the Supreme Court to argue her plea against the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in the state. Banerjee waited for nearly two hours to meet Chief Justice of India Surya Kant in his chamber before addressing the court.
In an unprecedented move, the Chief Minister personally submitted that the ongoing revision exercise was being used to selectively target West Bengal and exclude genuine voters instead of correcting errors. She told the bench led by the Chief Justice that the SIR process was focused on deletion rather than inclusion of voters and alleged that lakhs of names were being flagged without valid reasons.
“This SIR is for deletion, not inclusion,” Banerjee told the court, claiming that genuine voters were being marked under so-called “logical discrepancies” without transparency. Her counsel, senior advocate Shyam Divan, informed the bench that around 58 lakh voters had already been deleted, while nearly 88 lakh voters were flagged, with close to three lakh objections still pending. He pointed out that the final publication of electoral rolls was scheduled within the next 11 days.
Banerjee argued that common linguistic variations in Bengali surnames were being wrongly treated as discrepancies. She said surnames such as Datta and Dutta, Roy and Ray, Ganguly and Ganguli were natural dialectal differences and not spelling errors. She further questioned the deletion of women voters who changed their surnames after marriage, asking whether such a change could justify removal from electoral rolls.
Raising concerns over timing, the Chief Minister said the Election Commission had undertaken the exercise during festivals and the harvest season, when many migrant and rural voters were away from home. She questioned the urgency of the process and alleged that West Bengal, along with other non-BJP-ruled states, was being selectively targeted. “Why West Bengal, why not Assam?” she asked during the hearing.
Responding to the submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant assured that the court would ensure that no genuine voter was excluded. He observed that minor spelling or dialectal differences could not form the basis for deleting names from the electoral rolls. However, the bench clarified that names of deceased or legally disqualified persons would have to be removed in accordance with the law.
On the issue of Aadhaar cards not being accepted as proof, the court declined to comment, stating that the question of Aadhaar’s validity as a citizenship document was still pending and judgment had been reserved. The Chief Justice noted that Aadhaar had its own limitations in this regard.
Appearing for the Election Commission, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi rejected the allegations and said that notices issued during the SIR process clearly mentioned reasons for discrepancies. He told the court that the Commission had not yet received the fresh grievances raised during the hearing and sought time to examine them.
Banerjee also alleged that the ECI was not allowing state officials to participate in the revision process and had instead appointed micro-observers from BJP-ruled states while using artificial intelligence to delete names. Dwivedi countered this by saying the Commission was compelled to appoint micro-observers due to lack of cooperation from the state government. He claimed repeated requests were made to the state for appointment of Booth Level Officers and other officials, but only around 80 officers were provided.
After hearing all parties, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Election Commission seeking its response to Banerjee’s plea. The bench said the matter would be taken up again on Monday, granting the Commission time to examine the new grievances raised by the petitioners.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Mamta Banerjee, Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien and others challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of voter rolls in West Bengal. Earlier, the apex court had already issued directions to the ECI to disclose details of voters flagged under the “logical discrepancy” category, which could lead to exclusion.
