A new intervention application in the Supreme Court has questioned the legality of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s personal appearance and submissions before the apex court in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) electoral roll case, calling it “constitutionally improper” and “legally untenable”.
An intervention application has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s personal appearance in the electoral roll revision proceedings, arguing that it violates established legal norms and constitutional conventions.
The application, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, former vice-president of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, seeks to intervene in Banerjee’s writ petition challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls being carried out in West Bengal.
On February 4, Banerjee personally addressed the apex court, becoming the first sitting Chief Minister to argue in court. She urged the bench to “save democracy”, alleging that the SIR process was unfairly targeting the people of West Bengal.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria, is scheduled to hear the batch of petitions, including Banerjee’s, on Monday.
The intervention application contends that the nature of the proceedings concerns “state governance” and the exercise of constitutional powers by the Election Commission of India, and not any personal grievance of Banerjee.
“The subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner is not a personal or private dispute, but concerns matter of state governance and the constitutional exercise of powers by the Election Commission of India,” it states.
Aggarwal argues that the West Bengal government is already represented through its duly appointed advocates and that there was no reason or necessity for the Chief Minister to appear in person.
“The petitioner, being the incumbent Chief Minister, cannot claim to appear in a personal capacity,” the plea submits. “Such personal appearance… is constitutionally improper, institutionally undesirable, and legally untenable.”
The applicant asserts that such a move undermines “settled judicial conventions, established court practice, and principles of judicial discipline”.
The SIR of electoral rolls in West Bengal has become a politically sensitive issue, with Banerjee alleging that the process is being misused to intimidate and disenfranchise voters.
On January 19, the Supreme Court directed that the SIR exercise must be carried out in a transparent manner without causing inconvenience to voters.
On February 4, while issuing notice on Banerjee’s petition, the court sought responses from the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal by February 9.
The matter continues to raise significant constitutional questions around the role of public functionaries in judicial proceedings and the boundaries of institutional propriety. The Supreme Court’s response to the intervention application will be keenly watched.
