Kolkata: A fresh legal challenge has been filed in the Supreme Court raising objections to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally appearing before the apex court in a case linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state. The application argues that her direct participation in the hearing was neither appropriate nor justified under constitutional conventions.
The objection follows the February 4 hearing, during which Mamata Banerjee became the first sitting chief minister to personally address the Supreme Court. During her submission, she requested the court’s intervention in the ongoing revision of voter lists in West Bengal, alleging that the process was harming democratic principles and unfairly singling out the state and its electorate.
The matter is part of a larger batch of petitions related to the SIR exercise and is scheduled to be heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria.
The latest application has been moved by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, a former vice-president of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha. He contended that the personal presence of a chief minister in court could create indirect pressure on the judiciary and may affect the neutrality of proceedings, even if unintentionally.
According to the plea, the dispute is not a personal issue but one involving the constitutional functioning of the state and the Election Commission of India. It argues that such matters should be presented through officially appointed lawyers representing the state government, rather than by the chief minister herself.
The application further states that senior constitutional authorities must avoid personal court appearances in cases concerning governance, as this could blur the line between individual opinion and institutional position. It emphasizes that West Bengal is already represented by legal counsel, making the chief minister’s appearance unnecessary.
The plea also questions whether Mamata Banerjee could invoke Article 32 of the Constitution in this case, arguing that the matter does not involve any direct violation of her fundamental rights.
