West Bengal chief minister (CM) Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday became the first sitting CM to personally argue her own petition before the Supreme Court, urging it to “protect democracy” and “people’s lives”, as the court sought a response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on withdrawing notices to millions of people over minor spelling variations and dialect-based discrepancies during the ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in her state.
Making a dramatic appearance in a white saree and a black scarf, Banerjee made an impassioned 15-minute intervention before the bench, quoting from Rabindranath Tagore and describing ECI as a “WhatsApp Commission”. In the packed courtroom, the CM repeatedly stressed that she was not fighting for her party, but for voters who risk being struck off the rolls because of clerical and linguistic inconsistencies.
“I belong to that state...When justice is crying behind closed doors, we felt we are not getting justice anywhere. I am not fighting for my party… Please protect democracy…Please protect people’s lives…” Banerjee told the court in English, as she accused ECI of targeting voters in West Bengal ahead of the 2026 elections.
Banerjee’s unprecedented move created a spectacle in the apex court where scores of lawyers and litigants thronged the corridors to catch a glimpse of her.
{{/usCountry}}Banerjee’s unprecedented move created a spectacle in the apex court where scores of lawyers and litigants thronged the corridors to catch a glimpse of her.
{{/usCountry}}The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi asked ECI to act “carefully” while flagging discrepancies, fixed the next hearing for February 9, and directed the West Bengal government to propose a list of officers conversant with local dialects who could assist the poll panel in resolving errors without excluding genuine voters.
The hearing marked a rare moment in the Supreme Court, with Banerjee rising to address the bench in person, alongside senior counsel Shyam Divan, who appeared for her in the matter. Amid a crowd of lawyers and supporters, the CM reached the apex court around 10am, and was sitting in the first row meant for lawyers around 1pm, when the CJI-led bench commenced the hearing.
Opening arguments, Divan pressed for urgent interim reliefs, pointing out that the SIR exercise was nearing its deadline even as large numbers of voters remained entangled in the verification process. “Only four days are left…Unmapped voters are 32 lakhs (3.2 million) . About 1.36 crore (13.6 million) names are in the logical discrepancy list. Hearings are pending in 63 lakh (6.3 million) cases,” contended Divan, placing figures before the court.
Divan argued that the bulk of these discrepancies stemmed from minor spelling differences, pronunciation variations owing to local dialects, or routine changes such as surnames after marriage. “There are nearly 70 lakh (7 million) cases of minor name mismatches. These cannot become the basis for knocking out names from the electoral rolls,” he said, urging the court to direct withdrawal of notices issued solely on such grounds.
The bench acknowledged the concern, noting that discrepancies arising from dialect and pronunciation were common across the country. “We are not on spelling mistakes,” said the court, adding that genuine voters could not be excluded on such grounds.
Banerjee then requested the bench to permit her to address the court. “If you can allow me five minutes only,” she asked. The CJI responded by saying the court would give her not five but 15 minutes.
Banerjee launched a sharp critique of the SIR process, alleging that it had become an exercise aimed only at deletion, not correction or inclusion. “They call it a mismatch even after a woman changes her surname after marriage…Poor people shift houses, buy small flats, and suddenly they are deleted,” she said.
The CM alleged that despite earlier Supreme Court directions, voters continued to be struck off under the guise of “incorrect mapping”. “In the name of mapping and discrepancies, they are violating your orders,” she told the bench.
Banerjee also accused ECI of targeting West Bengal selectively on the eve of elections. “Why Bengal? Why not Assam?” she asked repeatedly, alleging that the commission was attempting to complete in two months a process that ordinarily takes years.
Referring to the deployment of micro-observers, she alleged that officials drawn from Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states were interfering in the verification process. “This Election Commission -- sorry, this ‘WhatsApp Commission’ -- is doing all this,” remarked the CM, prompting the bench to assure that safeguards could be put in place if required.
“I am a bonded labourer sir... I am from a common family and I am not fighting for my party,” she added.
The court repeatedly emphasised that the objective was to ensure that no genuine voter was excluded. “Every problem has a solution. You must look at the right places for solutions. No innocent citizen should be left out,” it said.
To that end, the bench asked the West Bengal government to propose a list of officers familiar with Bengali dialects and local naming conventions who could assist ECI in identifying and rectifying mistakes. “That will help them,” said the court, adding that it would give such officers time to report back.
At the same time, the bench cautioned ECI against mechanical issuance of notices. “Sensitise your officers. Issue notices carefully. Do not issue notices to notable authors and poets for nothing,” it told the poll panel’s counsel, senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and DS Naidu.
Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayan appeared for Sahitya Akademi awardee and poet Joy Goswami, another petitioner in the batch, underscoring concerns over indiscriminate notices.
Appearing for ECI, Naidu said that the commission had not yet been served with the latest petitions and needed time to respond. The bench, however, reminded him of the tight timeline of the SIR exercise. “We cannot grant you the luxury of indefinite time,” the court said. “On principle, if discrepancies are flagged because of dialect or pronunciation, you should tell us what you propose to do.”
Senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi, also representing ECI, blamed the state government for not providing sufficiently senior officers to assist the process. Banerjee strongly disputed the claim, asserting that Class-II officers had been deputed and accusing the commission of shifting blame.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, flagged what he described as an “atmosphere of hostility” and sought that ECI’s affidavit be brought on record at the next hearing.
In its operative directions, the court issued notice on the petitions filed by Banerjee and Goswami, asked ECI to respond on the issue of withdrawing notices based on minor discrepancies, and directed the state to submit a list of officers it could spare to assist the Commission. The matter was listed for further hearing on February 9.
As the proceedings drew to a close, Banerjee thanked the bench and made a final appeal: “We are very grateful, sir. Please protect people’s lives.”
Banerjee’s petition seeks to scrap West Bengal’s voter list revision entirely, insisting the 2026 assembly elections use only the existing 2025 rolls. It demands quashing ECI’s SIR orders from June 24 and October 27, 2025, plus all related directives. Arguing the SIR’s 2002 baseline and “onerous” verification threaten genuine voters’ rights, especially via “logical discrepancies” like spelling mismatches, she urges barring such hearings, mandating suo motu corrections from records, and uploading cases transparently on CEO/DEO websites. Further reliefs include withdrawing prior notices, halting deletions for documented 2002-mapped voters, and accepting Aadhaar as standalone ID proof.