Mamata Banerjee Appeals to Supreme Court: A Call to Protect Democracy in West Bengal

Mamata Banerjee's Urgent Plea to the Supreme Court

New Delhi: On Wednesday, West Bengal's Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee made a passionate appeal to the Supreme Court, urging it to step in during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, claiming that the state's democracy is under threat and its citizens are being oppressed.

The Supreme Court acknowledged Banerjee's petition, noting the unusual nature of a sitting chief minister presenting such arguments, and emphasized that 'genuine individuals must remain on the electoral roll.'

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, issued notices and requested responses from the Election Commission and West Bengal's chief electoral officer by February 9 regarding her claims.

Banerjee asserted that West Bengal is being unfairly targeted, questioning why similar measures were not implemented in Assam.

She stated, 'They are aiming to bulldoze the people of West Bengal,' and was allowed to elaborate on her lawyer's arguments by senior advocate Shyam Divan.

Expressing her frustration, Banerjee mentioned that she had sent six letters to the Election Commission seeking justice.

At the conclusion of the hearing, she thanked the bench for the opportunity to present her case and reiterated her call to 'save democracy.'

Banerjee has formally challenged the SIR of electoral rolls in her state.

Divan highlighted the significant number of unmapped voters and warned that time is running out for corrective actions, as the process is set to conclude on February 14.

He pointed out that the Election Commission must provide reasons for including names in the 'logical discrepancy' list, noting that 1.36 crore individuals have received notices for alleged violations.

These logical discrepancies relate to inconsistencies in linking voters to the 2002 voter list, such as mismatches in parental names and age differences between voters and their parents.

Divan also mentioned that many names flagged for discrepancies were misspelled, which could be easily corrected.

The Chief Justice remarked on the Bengali dialect, acknowledging that misspellings can occur due to linguistic variations.

The bench noted that electoral roll revisions sometimes involve migration issues, but it is crucial that legitimate voters remain on the list.

'Every issue has a solution, and we must ensure that no innocent person is excluded,' the Chief Justice stated.

Banerjee accused the Election Commission of not accepting Aadhaar and demanding other documents from voters for the electoral roll revision.

She claimed that several living individuals have been incorrectly declared deceased by the Election Commission during this process.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Election Commission, countered her allegations, claiming that the state government has only provided 80 grade-two officers, such as SDMs, to oversee the SIR process, while low-ranking employees like Anganwadi workers were assigned.

Banerjee refuted the Election Commission's claims, asserting that the state has fulfilled all requests made by the poll panel.

On January 19, the Supreme Court issued several directives, emphasizing that the SIR process in West Bengal should be transparent and not cause any inconvenience.

It instructed the Election Commission to display the names on the 'logical discrepancies' list at gram panchayat bhavans and block offices, where documents and objections can also be submitted.

Previously, Banerjee had written to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), asking him to suspend the 'arbitrary and flawed' SIR in the election-bound state.

Intensifying her criticism of the Election Commission, Banerjee warned that continuing the SIR in its current form could lead to 'mass disenfranchisement' and undermine the foundations of democracy.

In a strongly worded letter dated January 3 to CEC Gyanesh Kumar, she accused the Election Commission of overseeing an 'unplanned, ill-prepared, and ad hoc' process characterized by 'serious irregularities, procedural violations, and administrative lapses.'