Political friction intensified in West Bengal after opposition leader Suvendu Adhikari alleged that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s name did not appear in a Supreme Court order uploaded online, hours after the court heard her petition challenging the legality of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in the state. The claim, aired publicly soon after the hearing, triggered a fresh exchange between the ruling Trinamool Congress and the opposition, sharpening scrutiny of both the judicial process and the conduct of the voter verification exercise.The Supreme Court had taken up a plea filed by Mamata Banerjee questioning the constitutional validity and timing of the SIR exercise being undertaken by the Election Commission in West Bengal. The petition argued that the revision, initiated close to an election cycle, risked disenfranchising eligible voters, particularly migrant workers and marginalised communities, and could alter electoral rolls without adequate procedural safeguards. During the hearing, the court is understood to have sought responses from the Election Commission while indicating that the matter involved issues of public importance linked to the integrity of the electoral process.
Within hours, Adhikari, the Leader of the Opposition in the state assembly, claimed that the order uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website did not carry the Chief Minister’s name as a petitioner. He suggested that this omission raised questions about the nature of the proceedings and the portrayal of the hearing by the state government. The opposition leader framed the issue as one of transparency, asserting that public communication around the case should match the contents of the judicial record.
The Trinamool Congress dismissed the allegation as misleading and politically motivated. Party leaders pointed out that at the hearing stage, the court often passes brief procedural directions and that uploaded orders may not always reflect the full list of parties or submissions, especially when petitions are clubbed or tagged with related matters. They argued that the legal challenge remained on record and that the Chief Minister’s petition had been duly heard, accusing the opposition of attempting to cast doubt on the judiciary to score political points.
Legal experts note that discrepancies between oral hearings and uploaded orders are not uncommon, particularly in cases involving urgent or interim proceedings. Orders uploaded shortly after hearings may be skeletal, with detailed reasoning or complete party descriptions appearing later. Senior advocates familiar with Supreme Court practice said that the presence or absence of a name in an initial uploaded order does not by itself determine the status of a petition or the court’s consideration of it.
The controversy has nonetheless drawn attention back to the SIR exercise itself. The Election Commission has maintained that the revision is a routine process aimed at ensuring accurate electoral rolls by removing duplicate entries and updating voter information. Officials have stressed that safeguards are in place to prevent wrongful deletions and that voters have avenues for appeal and correction. Critics, including the state government, contend that the scale and timing of the exercise could disproportionately affect certain voter groups and create administrative confusion.
Opposition parties in the state have largely backed the revision, arguing that clean electoral rolls are essential for free and fair elections. Adhikari and other leaders have accused the ruling party of resisting scrutiny because of alleged irregularities in voter lists, a charge the Trinamool Congress denies. The debate has spilled beyond legal circles into the political arena, with both sides using the Supreme Court proceedings to reinforce their narratives ahead of future polls.