Only They Have Targeted Bengal On The Eve Of Elections… Why Not Assam? Why Not North East?” Mamata Banerjee Argues In Supreme Court Against SIR
From the Editor's Desk
Dramatic scenes unfolded in the Supreme Court on Wednesday as West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee addressed the bench in her writ petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State.
In a rare development, Banerjee personally appeared and made brief oral submissions—an unusual move for a sitting Chief Minister—while she was formally represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, who argued the matter in detail before the bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.
Banerjee alleged that the SIR exercise was being used to remove voters rather than correct or include names. Describing the drive as “not for inclusion but for deletion,” she pointed to cases where married women who adopt their husbands’ surnames and move to their matrimonial homes were allegedly struck off due to document mismatches.
She also suggested the process had left her with no option but to appear in court, claiming delays in relief and a lack of response from the Election Commission despite repeated representations. “The problem is, always our lawyers fight for the case and we are fighting from the beginning. But when everything is finished, when we are not getting justice, when justice is crying behind the door - then we thought, we are not getting justice anywhere. I have written letters to the Election Commission including all details, but no reply. I am a bonded labour. I am a very less important person, I am from a common family, I am not fighting for my party.”
At that stage, the CJI told Banerjee that multiple petitions relating to the West Bengal SIR were already pending and that the Court had heard extensive arguments from senior lawyers in the matter. He referred to earlier directions issued on January 19 after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal raised concerns, including steps aimed at ensuring transparent verification of the “logical discrepancy” list.
Banerjee argued that the Election Commission was not complying with the Court’s direction on accepting Aadhaar cards, alleging that Aadhaar was being accepted elsewhere but not in West Bengal. The CJI responded that Aadhaar has inherent limitations and said he would not comment further since the judgment on the legality of SIR is reserved.
The Chief Minister then alleged the exercise was being carried out selectively in West Bengal in the run-up to the 2026 Assembly elections. “Only they have targeted Bengal on the eve of elections. Why, after 24 years, what was the hurry to do in two months what will take two years? When the festival season is there, when the harvest season is there, when people are in no mood to be in the city, they are troubling people issuing notices. More than 100 people have died. BLOs have died writing letters, because of the harassment of ECI. Many are hospitalised. Bengal is targeted. Sir, tell me,why not Assam? Why not North East?” she submitted.
Banerjee also questioned the appointment of “micro observers,” alleging they were brought in to override booth-level officers (BLOs) and facilitate deletions. Claiming large-scale removals and wrongful classification of electors as deceased, she said, “58 lakh people are deleted. Living people are declared dead. They are targeting Bengal, only for Bengal they have appointed micro-observers. They want to bulldoze the people of Bengal.”
She further alleged that directions were being communicated informally on WhatsApp, dubbing the poll body a “WhatsApp Commission.” The CJI indicated the Court would ensure that directions are formally authorised and routed through the appropriate officials, including BLOs.
Appearing for the Election Commission, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi defended the appointment of micro observers, saying the poll panel had to do so after the State allegedly failed to provide enough Group B officers for the SIR despite repeated reminders. He maintained that micro observers were appointed in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, and attributed the situation to lack of cooperation by the State. Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, also for the ECI, echoed that argument.
After hearing the parties, the bench issued notice to the Election Commission on Banerjee’s plea and sought a response by next Monday. On the question of micro observers, the Court said they could be withdrawn if the State furnishes a list of Group B officers who can be deputed for the revision work.
The CJI also cautioned against issuing notices for minor name-spelling variations. “Probably once officers are made available, micro observers won't be required. [to ECI] Tell your officers also to be sensitive and not issue notice to...” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court there was an “atmosphere of hostility” in West Bengal towards ECI officials. He sought tagging of Banerjee’s matter with a PIL filed by Sanatan Sangsad seeking protection for ECI personnel. The bench agreed to list the PIL alongside Banerjee’s petition at the next hearing.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing Banerjee, pressed for immediate directions to stop deletions and urged that the 2026 Assembly elections be conducted on the basis of the 2025 electoral rolls rather than the revised rolls to be published after the SIR. He argued that only 11 days remained for publication of the final list and that more than 1.36 crore electors placed in the “Logical Discrepancy (LD)” category were still awaiting hearings, making completion within the deadline unrealistic.
Divan also contended that reasons for placing electors in the LD category were not being disclosed and said a significant portion of the cases related only to minor spelling differences—particularly where Bengali names are transliterated into English and surnames are commonly spelt in multiple ways. He urged that mere spelling variations should not trigger LD hearings.
In her petition, Banerjee has sought a range of reliefs, including setting aside the ECI’s SIR notifications dated June 24, 2025 and October 27, 2025; conducting the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections on the 2025 rolls; exempting name/spelling mismatch cases from LD hearings and allowing corrections based on records; publishing “unmapped” and LD cases online; withdrawing prior hearing notices issued only for spelling mismatches; ensuring LD-tagged voters are not deleted; accepting Aadhaar as proof of identity in LD cases; disclosing Form-7 submissions online and preventing bulk Form-7 submissions; allowing local disposal of inter-state verification cases if delayed beyond five days; withdrawing micro observers or restricting them from exercising statutory powers; and ensuring acceptance of documents issued by competent State authorities during verification.
Case Title: Mamata Banerjee vs Election Commission of India and Another,
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 129/2026.
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi.
