DNA: Decoding Mamata Banerjee’s historic appearance before the Supreme Court bench

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has approached the Supreme Court over the issue of Special Intensive Revision (SIR), calling it a major public concern.

For the first time in constitutional history, a sitting Chief Minister presented her case in the Supreme Court by describing an issue as one related to public interest. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee approached the Supreme Court over the issue of Special Intensive Revision (SIR), calling it a major public concern. This report analyses the constitutional development. In today's DNA, Rahul Sinha, Managing Editor, of Zee News, analysed Mamata Banerjee's SC appearance.

The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear Mamata Banerjee’s petition against SIR before a bench headed by the Chief Justice. Here is a chronological account of the proceedings.  Mamata Banerjee arrived at the Supreme Court at 10:10 am for the hearing.

At 10:15 am, she entered the Chief Justice’s courtroom and took a seat in the last row of the visiting gallery. In court proceedings, a designated area known as the visiting gallery is meant for petitioners to sit until their matter is taken up for hearing.

The hearing in the Chief Justice’s court began at 10:30 am.

Several petitions were listed before the Chief Justice’s bench. Mamata Banerjee’s petition was taken up at 1:00 pm. Until then, she remained seated in the visiting gallery at the back of the courtroom. From 10:15 am to 1:00 pm, she quietly waited for her case to be heard.

At 1:00 pm, the hearing on her petition began. Her counsel, Shyam Divan, started presenting arguments on her behalf.

As the hearing commenced, Mamata Banerjee moved from the back bench to the front, where petitioners are permitted to sit alongside their lawyers. While her counsel was presenting arguments, Mamata Banerjee stood up. Visuals showed her seated on the first bench with folded hands.

Known for her aggressive public posture, Mamata Banerjee appeared in a markedly different manner in the Supreme Court, standing with folded hands and displaying humility.

Addressing the Chief Justice’s bench, she said she had studied law and was familiar with Supreme Court procedures. She stated that she had filed the petition herself, that the matter concerned West Bengal, and that she belonged to the same state. She requested permission to present her side. The Chief Justice responded lightheartedly, saying there was no doubt that she belonged to that state.

Legally, advocates represent petitioners in court. Mamata Banerjee sought permission to speak despite not being a practising advocate. She holds an LLB degree but is not registered with any State Bar Council, has not cleared the All India Bar Examination, and does not hold a Certificate of Practice from the Bar Council of India. As a result, she is considered a law graduate but not an advocate.

To address the court herself, Mamata Banerjee had filed an interim application seeking permission to argue. Under legal provisions, any individual may seek permission to present their own case in court.

In her application, she stated that as the petitioner in an Article 32 writ, she was fully aware of the facts of the case and therefore should be allowed to present her submissions.

At 1:16 pm, Mamata Banerjee began addressing the court. With folded hands, she thanked the Chief Justice, Justice Bagchi, and Justice Pancholi for allowing her to speak. She presented her arguments until 1:36 pm. During this 20-minute period, the Election Commission’s counsel intervened several times, to which she responded by requesting, with folded hands, to be allowed to continue.

In her submissions, she opposed SIR, stating that steps being attempted within two months before elections were matters that should have been carried out over two years.

She said Aadhaar cards were not being recognised in West Bengal, and documents accepted in other states were being rejected there. She questioned the urgency and alleged that more than 100 people had lost their lives, including Booth Level Officers (BLOs). She said West Bengal was being specifically targeted.

She further alleged that micro-observers had been appointed who were deleting names by bypassing the authority of BLOs. She cited cases where women using their husband’s surname after marriage were being marked as mismatches and had their names deleted from electoral rolls.

After Mamata Banerjee concluded her arguments, the Election Commission’s counsel presented submissions. Following the hearing, the court issued notice to the Election Commission and sought its response by Monday, February 9.

Images of Mamata Banerjee standing with folded hands have become an important visual record of the legal battle against SIR. The appearance also conveyed her message that the fight against SIR is being pursued from the streets to the Supreme Court. It was also noted that West Bengal is scheduled to hold Assembly elections in April or May.