An intervention application has been filed
before the Supreme Court questioning the personal appearance of West Bengal
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in proceedings relating to the Special Intensive
Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state. The application challenges the
constitutional propriety of a sitting Chief Minister personally addressing the
Court in a matter that concerns issues of state governance and institutional
authority rather than a private or personal dispute.
The controversy arises from Banerjee’s
appearance before the Supreme Court last week, when she made submissions in a
petition filed by her challenging the SIR process being undertaken in West
Bengal. The intervention application has been moved by Satish Kumar Aggarwal,
Vice-President of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, who has sought permission
to assist the Court on what he describes as a matter of serious constitutional
and institutional importance.
The plea contends that allowing the
personal appearance of a serving Chief Minister in proceedings under Article 32
of the Constitution raises concerns about constitutional impropriety,
institutional discipline, and the long-term consequences for the separation of
powers. It argues that Banerjee’s petition does not involve any personal
grievance but instead relates to the constitutional authority of the Election
Commission of India (ECI) to conduct the SIR of electoral rolls in accordance
with election laws and constitutional provisions.
According to the applicant, the issues
raised in the case directly affect the functioning of the State of West Bengal
as a constitutional entity and its relationship with the Election Commission.
In such a scenario, the plea asserts that the Chief Minister cannot appear
before the Court in an individual capacity. Any representation in the matter,
it states, ought to be made through duly appointed legal counsel acting on
behalf of the State government. The application emphasizes that West Bengal is
already adequately represented by its appointed advocates, leaving no
justification for the Chief Minister’s personal participation in the
proceedings.
The applicant further highlights that
Banerjee’s appearance took place despite her being assisted by a team of senior
advocates. It is argued that such personal appearances by high constitutional
functionaries are inconsistent with established judicial conventions and court
practices, particularly when professional legal representation is already
available. The plea describes the appearance as constitutionally improper,
institutionally undesirable, and legally unsustainable, warning that it risks
undermining judicial discipline.
The application underscores that holders of
high constitutional offices are expected to conduct litigation through counsel
in order to preserve the dignity, neutrality, and independence of
constitutional courts. It cautions against the personalization of
constitutional adjudication, noting that personal participation by a serving
Chief Minister could create an impression of symbolic pressure or executive
influence over judicial proceedings. Such a perception, the plea argues, runs
contrary to the Supreme Court’s consistent efforts to maintain institutional
balance and uphold the doctrine of separation of powers.
In addition, the applicant challenges the
maintainability of Banerjee’s writ petition itself, contending that a petition
under Article 32 can only be sustained in cases involving the infringement of
fundamental rights. It is argued that the Chief Minister has not demonstrated
any violation of her personal fundamental rights by the Election Commission’s
actions.
The plea also draws attention to the
broader significance of the SIR exercise in West Bengal, referring to reports
suggesting that illegal immigrants may be fleeing the state to evade scrutiny
under the revision process. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant
is scheduled to hear the West Bengal SIR matter tomorrow.