An application before the Supreme Court of India has challenged the personal appearance and oral submissions made by Mamata Banerjee during hearings on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, arguing that a serving chief minister stepping into the role of an advocate is constitutionally improper and legally untenable.Filed days after the February 4 hearing, the application contends that the court’s processes risk being blurred when a member of the executive argues a matter directly, particularly in an election-related dispute that engages institutional checks and balances. The petitioner maintains that while political executives are entitled to instruct counsel and file affidavits, assuming the function of courtroom advocacy undermines established conventions that preserve the separation of powers and the integrity of judicial proceedings.
On February 4, Banerjee became the first serving chief minister to address the apex court in person, urging judicial intervention in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. She alleged that the exercise threatened democratic participation in West Bengal, claiming the state and its electorate were being singled out and “bulldozed”. Her submissions framed the revision as a constitutional moment warranting immediate scrutiny to safeguard the franchise.
The application now before the court challenges that premise and the manner of participation. It argues that election-related matters are governed by a statutory framework that assigns defined roles to constitutional authorities, notably the Election Commission of India, and that executive leaders must engage through prescribed legal channels. Allowing a chief minister to argue personally, the plea says, risks politicising the courtroom and creating an uneven field in sensitive electoral disputes.
Legal experts note that while there is no express constitutional bar on a litigant addressing the court, long-standing practice has drawn a distinction between litigants and advocates, especially when the litigant holds executive office. Former law officers point out that chief ministers regularly appear as parties through counsel, file affidavits, and seek urgent listings without stepping into advocacy. The novelty of Banerjee’s appearance, they say, is what has triggered the challenge.
Supporters of the chief minister counter that the Constitution guarantees the right to be heard and that extraordinary circumstances may justify direct submissions. They argue that the SIR’s scope and timing warranted a forceful articulation of concerns by the elected head of a state, particularly where allegations touch on mass disenfranchisement. From this view, the court’s discretion to hear any person it deems necessary remains paramount.
The application disputes that characterisation, asserting that urgency cannot override institutional propriety. It warns that setting such a precedent could invite future executive interventions across politically charged cases, diluting the neutrality of judicial forums. The plea also raises concerns about the optics of a chief minister addressing the bench while officials from constitutional bodies respond through counsel, potentially skewing public perception of parity.
At the heart of the dispute lies the SIR process itself. The revision is designed to update and verify electoral rolls, a routine yet consequential exercise ahead of polls. Critics within the state have alleged procedural overreach and insufficient safeguards, while election authorities have defended the exercise as necessary to ensure accuracy and prevent duplication. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the matter has therefore attracted national attention, with implications for how electoral administration intersects with federal politics.
Procedurally, the application seeks directions clarifying that constitutional functionaries should not personally argue cases connected to their official roles and that submissions be routed through advocates-on-record. It also asks the court to delineate boundaries to prevent future ambiguity, without prejudging the merits of the SIR challenge itself.
The court is expected to examine whether any rule or principle was breached and whether remedial guidance is warranted. Observers say the bench may focus on preserving decorum and precedent rather than revisiting the substance of the chief minister’s claims at this stage. Any clarification could shape how senior political figures engage with the judiciary in high-stakes constitutional disputes.