The Supreme Court dismissed an application objecting to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally appearing before it in the SIR electoral rolls case. The CJI-led Bench said such an appearance is “not unheard of” and reflects faith in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain an application that challenged the personal appearance of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in cases related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state. The Court strongly rejected the objection and described it as “constitutionally improper” and “legally untenable”.
While hearing the matter, the Chief Justice of India led Bench questioned the very basis of the objection raised against Banerjee’s appearance. Responding to the arguments, the Bench remarked,
“What is unheard in it? This shows trust and faith in the Constitution,”
making it clear that there was nothing unlawful or inappropriate in a serving chief minister personally addressing the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Mamata Banerjee Demands Justice for Pahalgam Terror Attack Victims, Slams Centre
The application was filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, a former vice president of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha. He sought to intervene in the writ petition filed by Mamata Banerjee, which challenges the ongoing SIR exercise being carried out in West Bengal by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
On February 4, Mamata Banerjee made legal history by becoming the first sitting chief minister to personally argue her case before the Supreme Court. During her submissions, she raised serious objections to the manner in which the electoral roll revision was being conducted in the state.
Banerjee argued before the Court that the SIR exercise was not genuinely about adding new voters but had effectively turned into a deletion exercise. She explained that people in India frequently change their place of residence due to marriage or employment. She also pointed out that women often change their names after marriage, which can lead to discrepancies in identity documents and voter records.
The Chief Minister further accused the Election Commission of selectively targeting opposition-ruled states, including West Bengal, just before elections. She alleged that a process which normally takes nearly two years was being rushed and compressed into a period of just three months.
Banerjee also told the Court that more than 100 booth-level officers had died during the SIR exercise, raising serious concerns about the pressure and working conditions involved. She further alleged that important documents such as domicile certificates were not being accepted during verification.
Additionally, she claimed that micro observers appointed by the ECI were being given powers to delete names from the voter list without giving the affected individuals any opportunity of being heard.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice intervened and acknowledged Banerjee’s concerns. He observed that the Court understood that the Chief Minister was aggrieved but reassured her that lawyers appearing in the connected petitions were already placing all the relevant issues before the Bench in a detailed and comprehensive manner.
In his intervention application, Aggarwal argued that Banerjee’s writ petition did not relate to any personal grievance but dealt with issues of governance and constitutional authority exercised by the Election Commission.
The application stated,
“The subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner is not a personal or private dispute, but concerns matters of state governance and the constitutional exercise of powers by the Election Commission of India.”
According to Aggarwal, the issues raised directly affect the institutional functioning of the State of West Bengal and its constitutional relationship with the Election Commission. On this basis, he argued that Banerjee could not appear in the matter in her personal capacity.
The application further claimed that in such cases, representation must only be through duly appointed advocates representing the State of West Bengal. It pointed out that the state government was already adequately represented by its legal counsel in the proceedings.
Terming Banerjee’s personal appearance on February 4 as problematic, the applicant submitted that the participation of a sitting chief minister in court proceedings where professional legal representation was already available was
“constitutionally improper, institutionally undesirable, and legally untenable”.
Rejecting these arguments, the Supreme Court made it clear that there was no legal bar on a chief minister personally addressing the Court, especially when the matter involved constitutional questions of great public importance.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing a batch of petitions related to the SIR process in West Bengal, including Mamata Banerjee’s plea challenging the manner and timeline of the electoral roll revision.
The matter continues to remain under active consideration of the Supreme Court.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Mamata Banerjee
