Why Mamata Banerjee's Day In The Supreme Court Has Sparked A Debate

Last Updated:February 05, 2026, 15:08 IST

From the West Bengal assembly to Parliament, from street protests to dharnas, one constant has followed Banerjee across decades---her confidence bordering on disregard for protocol

West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee with her nephew and TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee in New Delhi | Image: PTI

Mamata Banerjee’s Wednesday appearance in the Supreme Court for a voter roll revision hearing has sparked a debate. Some called it a “historic" move, stressing that it was the first time that a sitting chief minister had argued her case in the top court. But the Supreme Court, in its order, did not mention the chief minister’s presence or the argument put forward by Banerjee; instead it mentioned about the ‘brief’ argument by her advocate. “We have briefly heard Shri Shyam Divan and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel of the petitioner…" stated the court before going on with its direction.

Political and legal experts and analysts have varied views on her appearance.

Talking to News 18, Kanchan Gupta, senior advisor, ministry of information and broadcasting, said: “The Supreme Court has not even recorded her presence. Ten years from now, no one will remember she was there. It was pure theatrics. The court initially tried to dissuade her, but she kept interrupting the Chief Justice of India. What played out in the Supreme Court was not advocacy, it was just tamasha."

Her car with the security detail entered the Supreme Court premises in the morning, she walked the corridors, almost being surrounded by the security and her advocates. After waiting for around three hours in court number 1 of the SC for her case to come for hearing, she held everyone’s attention in the CJI’s court.

“What Didi has done in the Supreme Court is plain for all to see. Once again, she has taken up the cause of her electorate, fearlessly taking on the system, and making history in the process," said Saugata Roy, senior MP of Trinamool Congress.

Playing to the Gallery?

From the West Bengal assembly to Parliament, from street protests to dharnas, one constant has followed Banerjee across decades—her confidence bordering on disregard for protocol. The courtroom was no exception. She did not arrive to be represented. She arrived to speak.

Even as her band of lawyers stood ready, Banerjee repeatedly took control of the argument. When urged, gently, repeatedly even by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, to allow her advocate to make submissions, she barely paused. At one point, even the CJI intervened, asking her to let her counsel speak. The request slowed her momentarily. It did not stop her.

However, her decision to be present in the court and outshout everyone, including the CJI’s bench, was something that nudged people and carries political significance.

“She went to court because she sensed something was wrong about the SIR procedure. Something was amiss. That was a decision which she took and she made it possible. Politicians will always have their political rhetoric. But Mamata Banerjee is a champion of rhetoric. Even though she is a politician of long standing, she is also a trained lawyer who has appeared in a few cases before," said Prof Saikat Sinha Roy, a senior political analyst.

In the court, Banerjee was at her confrontational best. She called the Election Commission a ‘WhatsApp Commission’, and accused it of acting under political instructions. At one point, while referring to deaths of some BLOs, allegedly linked to election-related work-pressure, she said ‘suicide,’ then she alleged, they were ‘murdered’ and then quickly corrected herself to ‘died’ at her advocate’s prompt.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the ECI, on Wednesday said that ECI had to appoint micro observers since the state government did not spare sufficient Group B officers for SIR work despite multiple reminders. He asserted that micro observers are validly appointed as per the RP Act, and they had to be appointed due to the non-cooperation by the State, live law reported.

“As a sitting chief minister, this is unprecedented. Yes, politics is ingrained in such arguments, but the real test is how reasonable they are and whether they stand on merit and evidence. Leaders like P. Chidambaram, Ashok Sen, and Siddhartha Shankar Ray have fought legal battles before, but a sitting chief minister personally arguing her case is rare. Now, the court will have to closely examine the substance of her arguments," added Roy, who is a senior professor of Economics, Jadavpur University.

Debate Ensues

None of her arguments, however, went into SC’s record.

Citing the court’s directions, Mahesh Jethmalani, senior advocate of the Supreme Court posted on X, “As I walk into Supreme Court today, a word on Mamata Banerjee’s grandstanding debut in the apex court yesterday. She came, she squeaked, she fizzled. By the way, she did not even get a mention in the order. What a circus."

Jai Anant Dehadrai, another SC advocate, mentioned some of the ‘irregularities’ citing the rules. “First, appearance as a party-in-person is not a matter of choice or spectacle. Under Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules a litigant can argue in person only after filing a formal application, undergoing scrutiny by the Registrar, and satisfying the Court that she is unable to engage an Advocate failing which the Court may even appoint counsel or amicus. It is a regulated exception, not a political privilege. The rule certainly doesn’t envisage a petitioner-in-person supplementing their engaged counsel," he stated.

“Second, her vehicle being permitted entry into the Supreme Court precincts raises a basic question of equality before procedure. The court functions on uniform access norms and there is no rule that allows special logistical indulgence for political personalities. One cannot posture as a champion of the common citizen while simultaneously bending institutional rules for personal optics. The Supreme Court is not a stage for political theatre," he further added.

Amit Malviya, BJP’s IT department and Bengal’s co-in charge, called Banerjee’s act ‘political theatrics’. “The Supreme Court has refused to take the West Bengal Chief Minister’s submissions on record. Her political theatrics have been dismissed with the contempt they deserve. This should have embarrassed her beyond measure but nothing seems to shame Mamata Banerjee. She has been rebuffed in the court of law. Next, she will face the verdict of the people’s court," he said.

News politics Why Mamata Banerjee's Day In The Supreme Court Has Sparked A Debate

Read More