SIR, state is being targeted: Supreme Court backs Mamata Banerjee on name-mismatch deletions
Telegraph | 5 February 2026
Chief minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday herself argued her case against the Election Commission in the Supreme Court, accusing the poll panel and the BJP of targeting Bengal and “bulldozing” its citizens through the SIR drive.
Appearing as petitioner-in-person to argue the “Mamata Banerjee vs ECI” case, based on an interlocutory application she filed in her individual capacity, she said the names of around 58 lakh Bengal voters had been deleted and over 1.3 crore electors had been put on the “logical discrepancies” list during the ongoing SIR exercise. She said she had written at least six letters to the EC and decided to personally approach the court after failing to get any proper response.
“I am here… because justice is crying behind the doors,” Mamata told a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, addressing the judges mostly as "Sir".
The top court issued a notice to the EC on Mamata’s plea, which seeks a stay of the SIR drive in Bengal and a return to the earlier rolls for the upcoming Assembly elections. The matter will be heard again on February 9.
Mamata said the SIR was only aimed at deletion, not inclusion, of voters.
“They (EC) point out a mismatch in title and surnames of persons. Suppose a daughter gets married and goes to her in-laws’ house, they are asking why she is using her husband’s name… that is also a mismatch, they say,” Mamata told the bench of CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
The bench agreed with Mamata and senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for her, that Bengali surnames such as Tagore, Dutta and Roy could be written differently and it was no basis for the deletion of names on the ground of “mismatch”.
“We don’t know how Tagore might be pronounced or spelt in different dialects, but that does not mean Tagore is not Tagore. Roy, Dutta, Ganguly... there are variations as to how they are spelt, but that should not lead to the violation of fundamental rights,” the bench observed.
The top court suggested that the Bengal government provide a sufficient number of staff well-versed in different dialects in Bengal to assist the EC in resolving the issues arising from name mismatch.
Mamata questioned why no SIR was being carried out in BJP-ruled Assam, hinting that the entire exercise was politically motivated.
“They are targeting Bengal by also appointing micro-observers and to bulldoze the Bengal people. Logical discrepancies cannot be deleted. It is being done by micro-observers appointed from BJP-ruled states,” Mamata toldthe bench.
“Why are they not doing it in Assam? Why not in Assam?” she asked.
The chief minister quoted figures to say that the EC had appointed 8,300 micro-observers for verification of the rolls without any statutory basis. She claimed that the micro-observers were sitting in their offices and deleting the names, a task that should be carried out only by the electoral registration officers (EROs).
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the EC, said the poll panel was forced to appoint micro-observers after the state failed to comply with the earlier apex court directive to depute staff.
Dwivedi submitted that the EC had sought Class II officers from Bengal to be appointed as EROs, but the state did not cooperate.
Countering Dwivedi, Mamata said adequate staff had been deputed for the SIR.
The CJI intervened to say that the state should provide more staff to the poll panel for the exercise.
Mamata accused the EC of “unilaterally deleting the names of people”.
“They are not accepting Aadhaar cards. Bengal people are so happy that this court gave the order that Aadhaar will be one of the documents of proof…. In other states, domicile certificates and OBC certificates are allowed, but they only targeted Bengal due to the elections. Four states are going to have elections soon. What was the hurry to do it (SIR) in three months?” she asked.
Mamata said the process, which usually takes two years, was being undertaken in a short span of three months even during the festival and harvesting seasons in the state.
She also claimed that many people who are alive have been declared dead by the EC during the ongoing process.
The CJI said the court would not comment on the issue of the Aadhaar card’s validity as a document of proof, as it had reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the SIR.
“Aadhaar card has its own limitations. We don’t want to comment on it. We are yet to determine it. You have raised some issues like logical discrepancies. We will give them (EC) one day to reply,” CJI Kant said.