On February 4, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee became the first sitting CM in India to personally appear in the Supreme Court, contesting the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls in the state. Her appearance drew widespread attention, as many debated whether it was constitutionally appropriate for a sitting chief minister to act as a ‘Petitioner-in-Person’.

As a trained lawyer, Banerjee argued that the SIR process focused on arbitrary deletions rather than additions, targeting over 1.36 crore voters. She highlighted the urgency of protecting voter rights in Bengal, asserting that the Election Commission’s revisions could lead to large-scale disenfranchisement ahead of upcoming elections.

While the Supreme Court bench noted that Banerjee already had a team of experienced lawyers, she insisted on speaking herself, presenting her case as an ordinary citizen motivated by concern for democracy. Her justification emphasized that she had repeatedly written letters to the Election Commission with little response, prompting her personal intervention in court.

Also Read: TMC Brings Mamata's Welfare Schemes to Big Screen with New Film 'Lokkhi Elo Ghore'

Mamata’s presence in the Apex Court was widely viewed as a historic and unprecedented move, with the court granting her sufficient time and attention to present her arguments. The Chief Minister leveraged the platform to reinforce her image as a defender of democracy, while signaling urgency in addressing electoral issues in West Bengal.

Critics described the appearance as a political gesture, potentially aimed at energizing TMC supporters ahead of the 2026 assembly elections. However, supporters and observers noted that it also amplified public awareness about alleged voter deletions and reinforced Banerjee’s commitment to protecting electoral rights.

Despite sparking debate on judicial decorum and political motives, Mamata Banerjee’s move underscored a strategic blending of legal advocacy and political messaging. By personally presenting her case, she positioned herself as a proactive leader addressing perceived ECI bias while engaging directly with voters and the broader public discourse.

Also Read: Supreme Court Firm: No Obstacle to Bengal Voter List Revision