Can a Sitting Chief Minister Appear in Court? Mamata Banerjee’s Supreme Court Case Explained

India’s judicial and political landscape witnessed an unusual and closely watched moment on February 4, 2026, when Mamata Banerjee, the sitting Chief Minister of West Bengal, appeared in person before the Supreme Court of India in a case challenging the legality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State.

The matter was heard by a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, marking what legal observers described as one of the rarest instances of a serving Chief Minister personally addressing the apex court in a matter with statewide electoral consequences.

What Is the Case About? Understanding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

The case concerns the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in West Bengal.

Electoral rolls are official lists of eligible voters. A Special Intensive Revision is a comprehensive re-verification exercise undertaken before elections to:

• Remove ineligible or duplicate entries

• Correct errors in voter data

• Update the rolls through field verification and documentation

While such exercises are routinely conducted, the West Bengal government has alleged that the manner, scale, and timing of the SIR in the State raise serious constitutional concerns.

Why Mamata Banerjee Appeared in Person Before the Supreme Court

Mamata Banerjee moved an interlocutory application seeking the Court’s permission to appear and address the Bench in person as a party to the case.

This is legally known as “appearance in person”, a procedure where:

• A litigant who is a party to the case may request permission to speak directly to the judges

• Such permission is not a right, but is granted only at the Court’s discretion

• It does not convert the person into a lawyer or allow them to replace their legal counsel

Banerjee appeared as Chief Minister and petitioner, not as an advocate.

Is Mamata Banerjee a Lawyer? Clearing the Confusion

Mamata Banerjee holds an LLB degree from Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri College of Law, Calcutta University, completed in 1982. According to available records, she last practised law in 2003.

However:

• She is not enrolled as a practising advocate

• She does not hold a current Bar Council licence

• Therefore, she cannot argue as a lawyer before the Court

Her role was limited to addressing the Bench with permission, alongside her legal team, not in place of them.

What Happened in Court on February 4, 2026

The hearing took place before a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi also part of the Bench.

Key Developments in the Courtroom

• Banerjee argued that West Bengal was being singled out by the Election Commission

• She pointed out that micro-observers were appointed only in West Bengal, even though similar revision exercises were being carried out elsewhere

• “They are only targeting West Bengal,” she told the Court

Moving the Bench emotionally, Banerjee made a direct appeal:

“I have only a humble request to you, My Lords — save democracy.”

Supreme Court Issues Notice on Appointment of Micro-Observers

After hearing the submissions, the Bench issued a notice to the Election Commission of India specifically on the issue of appointment of micro-observers in West Bengal.

The Court acknowledged that:

• The State’s petition had raised problems with the SIR process

• Banerjee’s personal submissions highlighted additional concerns

The next hearing was scheduled for Monday, February 9, 2026.

Mass Deletions and Alleged Irregularities in Electoral Rolls

West Bengal’s draft electoral roll for the first phase of the SIR was released on December 16, 2025.

According to the petition:

• Over 58 lakh electors’ names were deleted

• Multiple discrepancies were flagged, including:

  • Unusually high numbers of young deaths

  • Gender bias in deletions

  • Certain communities facing disproportionately higher deletions

Banerjee claimed that the appointment of micro-observers had led to further exclusions beyond the already deleted 58 lakh names.

ECI’s Response and the State’s Rebuttal

Appearing for the ECI, Rakesh Dhawan objected to Banerjee’s allegations and argued that:

• The State government was not cooperating with the SIR process

• Micro-observers were appointed to assist the Election Commission, not target the State

This was immediately countered by the State’s counsel:

“We have given whatever they have asked. It is not true that the State government is not cooperating.”

‘Tagore Is Tagore’: CJI’s Remark on Name Discrepancies

Addressing concerns over spelling errors and data inconsistencies, CJI Surya Kant made a pointed observation:

“In the coming days we cannot know how Tagore is going to be spelt. But Tagore is Tagore, no matter how they spell his name.”

The remark underlined the Court’s concern that minor errors should not become grounds for disenfranchisement, especially when electoral timelines are tight.

Legal Scope of the Petition: What Mamata Banerjee Has Asked For

In her writ petition filed on January 28, 2026, Banerjee sought:

• Quashing of all SIR-related orders issued by the ECI on June 24, 2025, and October 27, 2025

• Scrapping of all connected directives

• A direction that upcoming Assembly elections be conducted using the 2025 voter list

The petition alleges that the SIR process is:

• Opaque

• Hasty

• Unconstitutional

• Likely to cause large-scale disenfranchisement

Concerns Over ‘Logical Discrepancy’ (LD) Classification

A major point raised in the petition relates to individuals classified under the ‘Logical Discrepancy’ (LD) category.

Banerjee alleged that:

• The LD list was not uploaded online, despite Court directions

• Affected persons were denied transparency

• Voters were deprived of an effective opportunity to respond

She argued that failure to publish the LD list undermines procedural fairness.

Background: Timeline of the SIR in West Bengal

• November 4, 2025 – SIR rolled out in West Bengal

• December 16, 2025 – Draft electoral roll published

• January 19, 2026 – Deadline for claims and objections

• February 14, 2026 – Scheduled publication of final electoral roll (subject to Court proceedings)

In a previous hearing on January 12, the Supreme Court had already expressed concern:

“See the strain and stress going on for ordinary people. Over one crore people have been issued notices… we are going to pass some orders.”

Political Escalation Outside the Courtroom

The court appearance came amid heightened political activity:

• Banerjee has been in Delhi for three days leading TMC’s campaign against the SIR

• She visited the Banga Bhawans, where “SIR-affected” people were staying

• She led a delegation to meet Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, later accusing him of being “arrogant and a liar”

• The TMC released a poster showing Banerjee in a lawyer’s gown captioned “People’s advocate vs devil’s advocate”

• The party also indicated it was considering moving an impeachment motion against the CEC

Is This Really the First Time a CM Has Done This?

Legal experts caution against oversimplified headlines.

While this is highly unusual, it does not break legal norms.

Comparative Perspective

• Kapil Sibal: A senior advocate who largely paused courtroom practice while serving as a Union Minister

• Arvind Kejriwal: Appeared personally in courts as a litigant, not as a lawyer

• Rahul Gandhi: Appeared in court during criminal proceedings, without arguing cases

• Subramanian Swamy: Appeared in person in constitutional matters with court permission

Banerjee’s case falls squarely under court-permitted appearance in person, not legal advocacy.

The Legal Bottom Line

• A Chief Minister may appear in court as a party

• With permission, they may address the Bench directly

• They cannot argue as an advocate without Bar enrolment

• They cannot replace their legal counsel

The Court retained full control over procedure, reinforcing judicial independence.

Why This Case Matters for Democracy

Beyond electoral rolls, the episode highlights a deeper constitutional principle:

• Political authority does not override judicial procedure

• Courts decide who speaks, how, and for how long

• Even the highest elected officials remain subject to legal rules

As this case unfolds, it will shape not only electoral administration in West Bengal, but also public understanding of how power interacts with constitutional institutions.

Power May Enter the Courtroom, But It Does Not Command It

Mamata Banerjee’s appearance in the Supreme Court is symbolically powerful, politically charged, and legally controlled.

The Court’s handling of the case sends a clear message:

In India’s constitutional system, democracy is protected not by personalities, but by procedure. The final word, as always, rests with the judiciary.