A Packed Court, a Woman Leader, and a Question of Democracy: Inside Mamata Banerjee’s SC Appearance

Mamata Banerjee took the rare step of speaking in the Supreme Court on voter roll revisions. She warned that linguistic errors and tight deadlines could exclude crores of citizens. The legal battle is set to continue

Date:

Share post:

Delhi: Mamata Banerjee (Didi) in the Supreme Court — why this was historic, and what was oh, so regular.

  1. There was a palpable energy in the Supreme Court that could be felt by everyone present in Courtroom No. 1. Everyone was waiting for the same moment — will she be allowed to speak?

She did. And what an epitome of intelligence, humility, and grace.

She was interrupted a few times, but the message was clear: she would not leave without making her voice heard. She spoke — and asked some deeply pertinent questions:

A) The #SIR process, which should properly take at least two years — why is it being rushed through in just three months?

B) Why is the SIR exercise being carried out by the states?

C) Why has the Election Commission not responded to the various letters written by her and by the State?

D) She pointed out that crores of people stand at risk of disenfranchisement because they may not have the time to get corrections done in such a short window — especially during festival and harvest seasons.

  1. I heard whispers from some quarters — “Ah, the DRAMA… political drama!”

But why does no one notice the alleged drama of the State counsels — who repeatedly need instructions, argue on technicalities, and are willing to say anything that does not require them to argue on merits today?

When the State counsels tried to stop her, the CJI remarked: “Let her speak. She has travelled a long distance.”
(Mild laughter in court.)

  1. What was most heartening was the bated breath with which people listened on both sides — those who had somehow managed to squeeze themselves in and were still standing in an utterly packed courtroom.

Most heartening for me personally were the exchanged glances with women in the room — soft smiles that said everything. They knew what was happening beyond what was being spoken. The subtext. The power of a woman taking on power itself.

  1. The Court listed the matter for Monday. It said it would also hear the petition filed by the Election Commission and asked the State of West Bengal — represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan ji — to provide a list of government officers who could assist with correcting discrepancies arising from Bengali spellings and names.

So what’s historic is this — a tigress leading from the front, not yielding an inch, arguing for her people.

What’s regular is this — no debate on the meta questions, technical nitty-gritties dominating the discourse, and of course… the next date.

My only regret: not being able to tell her, as she got into the car and waved goodbye — “Didi, you are a warrior princess.”
This moment will stay etched in my memory for as long as I live.

I love my profession on days like these — when you witness history being made, firsthand.

But all legal battles like this are long ones. Someday, perhaps in our lifetimes, we will be able to argue — and the Court will hold — that matters impacting the very foundation of our Constitution must be heard within fixed timelines and resolved within fixed timelines. No drama. Just swift and substantive access to justice for all.

P.S. Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan raised two important points — that different states are being forced to raise different issues regarding SIR. The subtext, I believe, was that the meta questions surrounding SIR must be heard and settled once and for all, so that SIR-related litigation does not become a never-ending relay race.

To this, the Bench responded that this is how it is going to be — that it is only natural. (Not verbatim.)

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal also intervened and, on a lighter note, was told by the CJI: “Mr Sibal, you are not well. You should rest today!”
(Mild laughter in court.)

Deep breath — and on to the next day in the Supreme Court.

I am not a journalist, but who can resist documenting history?

And yes, lawyers — we all pretend this is business as usual. But there are days when everyone knows that it is not.

When power and law interact in full public view. When the occasional haughtiness of lawyers gives way to their humanness. When what is not said in words must be read in eyes, silences, and energy.

Avani Bansal
Avani Bansal
Avani is an Advocate in the Supreme Court of India, National Spokesperson of Congress, Oxford & Harvard alumni and Founder of The Womb (www.thewomb.in) - India’s first newspaper for women.

Related articles

Killed Over a Skullcap, Ignored by the System: What 405 Documented Hate Incidents Reveal About Impunity in India

A new APCR report documents 405 hate crimes and speeches across India in nine months—including 54 deaths, post-poll violence in West Bengal, and 37 per cent state actor involvement—exposing how public incitement and police inaction fuel targeted minority violence.

The Architect of Indian Minds: From Macaulay’s Clerks to Azad’s Engineers

Maulana Azad held no formal degrees, yet he built the IITs and dismantled the British system designed to produce clerks. As India debates commercialised schooling and institutional credibility in 2026, his radical republic of learning demands an urgent revisit

From Tuition Teacher to School Founder: How ‘Laddu Sir’ Built a School of 1,800 Dreamers

Topsia’s Noble Mission School is challenging the notion that talent needs expensive schooling. Founded by ‘Laddu Sir’, the school has 1,800 students and affordable ₹600 monthly fees. At its annual day, Wali Rahmani reminded parents that paying school fees is no substitute for education.

Beyond Property and Politics: Understanding the History of Waqf in India

Syed Ubaidur Rahman's *History of Waqf in India* explores the institution's Islamic foundations, historical evolution and changing legal framework, offering a wider perspective on Waqf beyond contemporary debates over property, politics and state regulation.