Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s appearance before the Supreme Court on Wednesday challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has sparked an animated debate within the legal fraternity.
While political reactions were expected, lawyers, cutting across ideology, focused on the constitutional novelty, courtroom propriety and legal misconceptions that have been part of the buzz cocktail that was sparked by her appearance.
Calcutta High Court advocate Akash Sharma called the moment “unprecedented” and underlined its significance.
“Personal appearances and making oral submissions by a sitting chief minister before the Supreme Court are unprecedented. It highlights both the political sensitivity and the constitutional importance of the voter roll revision dispute,” he said.
Sharma also pointed to Banerjee’s conduct in court, noting that “she, being an advocate herself, made her submissions with courtesy and propriety, seeking permission from her lead counsel as well as the Chief Justice of India before addressing the court.”
Several lawyers pushed back against social media narratives that fixated on Banerjee’s attire more than her arguments. Calcutta High Court advocate Sourav Chunder described the debate as legally misplaced.
“Under the Bar Council of India rules, gowns and bands are worn only by advocates appearing as counsel. Anyone appearing in person before the Supreme Court is neither required nor entitled to wear them. Dress follows capacity, not credentials,” he said.
Chunder pointed out that Banerjee is a law graduate from the University of Calcutta and her name appears in the Calcutta High Court Bar Association directory.
Advocate Abhishek Chakraborty underlined that the Bengal chief minister did not argue the matter as a lawyer.
“She argued the case as a litigant, a party-in-person appearance which is absolutely allowed as per the prevalent laws of the nation,” he said, warning that had she worn an advocate’s gown, it could have raised conflict-of-interest concerns unless she resigned as chief minister and renewed her bar licence.
“I request the media houses, for the sake of responsible journalism, not to mislead the public,” he added.
For some within the profession, the moment carried emotional weight. “In the history of our nation, this is the first time a chief minister has taken the matter into her own hands to fight for common people,” said Debolina Dey, an advocate practising at the Calcutta High Court for 11 years. “It makes me, being a woman advocate, immensely proud.”
Younger members of the legal community balanced admiration with scepticism.
A Kolkata-born law student studying at Government Law College, Mumbai, acknowledged gaps in the SIR process, citing personal struggles with spelling discrepancies.
“In light of information like this, it is difficult to ignore the merits of the Bengal’s chief minister’s arguments,” he said, even while noting that “she is, at the end of the day, a politician”.
Another young voice, a 26-year-old recent Delhi University graduate, admitted initial cynicism.
“When I heard Mamata Banerjee was going to the Supreme Court, I felt it was absurd and gimmicky. But when I heard her, it seemed like the old firebrand Opposition leader was back,” she said, calling the move “a calculated but effective pre-election gamble” aimed at reclaiming the bhadralok electorate.
Advocate Subhasish Pachhal was more direct.
“She may not be successful in the pending litigation moved against the SIR, but somehow she gained political mileage across the poor sector of the society,” he said. “Those are always available to be fooled by the political leaders.”