User
Adv. Anuradha Sharma,
District Courts, Hisar).
(नया अध्याय, देहरादून)
An Advocate’s View—Mamata Banerjee, SIR, and the Supreme Court’s Duty to Protect Electoral Democracy
The appearance of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee before the Supreme Court in the dispute surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is not merely a political event—it is a constitutional moment of great consequence. From the perspective of an advocate and a student of constitutional law, this case goes beyond personalities and parties. It touches the very core of democratic legitimacy: the right of every citizen to vote.
The Electoral Roll: The First Pillar of Representation
In any democracy, the electoral roll is not a routine administrative register. It is the foundation upon which representative governance is built. Article 326 of the Constitution guarantees adult suffrage, ensuring that every eligible citizen has the right to participate in choosing their government.
A revision exercise like SIR may be legally permissible, but its execution must remain above suspicion. The fear of wrongful deletions—especially among marginalized and vulnerable populations—cannot be dismissed as political rhetoric. Even a single genuine voter excluded unjustly is a constitutional failure.
A Chief Minister Before the Apex Court: Symbolism and Seriousness
It is rare for a sitting Chief Minister to appear personally before the Supreme Court. Mamata Banerjee’s decision to do so underscores the seriousness with which the West Bengal government views the SIR process.
From a legal standpoint, such an appearance is significant because it reflects the constitutional principle that all authorities, executive or otherwise, remain accountable within the framework of law. It also highlights that electoral matters are not merely procedural—they are deeply tied to fundamental democratic rights.
The Supreme Court as Guardian of the Franchise
The Supreme Court’s role in this case is crucial. Under Article 32, the Court remains the ultimate protector of fundamental rights. When concerns arise that an electoral revision may disenfranchise legitimate voters, judicial oversight becomes not only justified but necessary.
At the same time, the Election Commission of India derives its authority from Article 324 and must be allowed functional independence. Yet, independence cannot mean immunity from scrutiny. The constitutional balance lies in ensuring both autonomy and accountability.
The Larger Democratic Concern: Inclusion Must Prevail
The SIR controversy raises a larger national question: can electoral roll revisions be conducted without risking exclusion?
Inclusion is the soul of Indian democracy. The Constitution does not merely envision elections—it envisions participation. Any process that creates doubt over voter access weakens the credibility of the entire electoral system.
The Court must ensure that the pursuit of accuracy does not become a mechanism of disenfranchisement.
Conclusion
From an advocate’s viewpoint, the Mamata Banerjee–SIR case is not simply a clash between a state government and the Election Commission. It is a test of constitutional conscience.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will likely shape the future framework of voter list revisions across India. The guiding principle must remain clear: democracy cannot survive if legitimate voters are left out of its most basic process.
The right to vote is not an administrative privilege—it is a constitutional guarantee, and it must be protected with the utmost vigilance.
