The hearing before the Supreme Court in the case between Enforcement Directorate (ED) and former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee was privy to an interesting exchange on Wednesday over another contentious issue in the State, the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the ex-CM, told the Court that his son was placed under 'list of adjudication' during SIR because of the confusion over 'Banerjee' surname which is the anglicised version of the Bengali name surname Bandopadhyay, a fact unknown to many outside Bengal.

He was responding after the Bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria corrected itself while recording Banerjee's name in the order.

During a brief exchange on scheduling of the case, the Bench noted that Kalyan Banerjee would be present at the hearing.

"Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, sorry Bandopadhyay will be there," said the Court.

“Banerjee and Bandopadhyay are the same. There is no logical discrepancy,” explained Kalyan Banerjee, prompting laughter in the courtroom.

"I understand the purport of the word," Justice PK Mishra replied.

"My son's name was under the list of adjudication because of Banerjee and Bandopadhyay. All are now logical discrepancies," Banerjee replied.

He was referring to one of the grounds on which many people were excluded from voters list during SIR in West Bengal - logical discrepancy.

The Court replied in jest saying,

“Now all logical things have become illogical.”

The Bench eventually posted the case to be heard on May 22 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time.

The case stems from events on January 8, when Mamata Banerjee reportedly entered the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain, while ED searches were underway in connection with a money laundering probe.

The agency alleged that certain documents and electronic devices relevant to the investigation were removed from the premises.

Banerjee has, however, maintained that the material contained information related to her political party, the All India Trinamool Congress, which has been associated with I-PAC since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

The ED’s investigation arose from a 2020 money laundering case against businessman Anup Majee, who is alleged to be involved in an illegal coal mining and smuggling syndicate operating in West Bengal. According to the agency, coal was illegally excavated from Eastern Coalfields Limited leasehold areas and sold to various factories and plants in the State.

The agency then approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 accusing Banerjee and State officials of interfering with its investigation and search operations.

As per the petition, the intervention resulted in the removal of crucial physical and electronic material connected to the investigation.

On January 15, the Court said that there would be lawlessness in the country if it does not examine the issues raised by the ED. It then issued notice to Mamata Banerjee, then Director General of Police (DGP) Rajeev Kumar and others despite the State strongly disputing the maintainability of the petition being

The State has maintained that the Article 32 petition filed by the ED against the State government cannot be entertained since Article 32 can be invoked only by citizens for violation of fundamental rights.

On March 24, the Court questioned the objections and asked whether the agency's officers cease to become citizens of India merely because they are officers of ED.

[Read Live Coverage]