From Bankshall to Bhagwan Das Road: When CM Mamata Banerjee donned lawyer's robes

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee stepped into the Supreme Court on February 4, 2026 and chose to argue her case in person amid much fanfare.

It was another instance in a political career that has repeatedly intersected with confrontations in courtrooms - from district courts in Bengal in the 1990s to the country’s highest judicial forum decades later.

The case concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, in which the CM argued, was heard by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi.

Addressing the Court herself, Banerjee questioned the manner in which the revision exercise was being carried out. The CM was in full form, at one point referring to the Election Commission as a “WhatsApp Commission”, alleging that directions were being issued by the poll body informally through WhatsApp. She told the Bench that the process appeared to focus on deletion of names rather than inclusion and said that genuine voters were being removed from the rolls.

Banerjee flagged concerns relating to poor voters and women. She cited instances where women were allegedly deleted from the rolls because of surname changes after marriage. She also raised objections to the deployment of micro observers from outside West Bengal, alleging that they were overriding local booth level officers (BLOs).

The Supreme Court eventually issued notice to the Election Commission and indicated that the process must ensure that legitimate voters are not disenfranchised.

An unusual, but not unprecedented appearance

Over the years, Banerjee has personally entered courtrooms during periods of political confrontation, including her years in the opposition in West Bengal when the Communist Party was in power in the State.

In June 2003, Banerjee appeared before a court at the Bankshall complex in Kolkata following the arrest of several Mayor-in-Council members of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The arrests were made after a complaint was lodged by then Municipal Commissioner Debashish Som, alleging obstruction and illegal conduct. Banerjee donned the lawyer's robes and argued in court that the arrests were politically motivated. The accused were later granted bail.

She was also seen in court in matters linked to the July 21, 1993 police firing in Kolkata, in which 13 Youth Congress workers were killed during a march to Writers’ Building. After the incident, counter-cases were registered against several surviving activists, accusing them of rioting and violence. Banerjee appeared in court in support of the activists, arguing that they were victims of police brutality and that the cases were meant to justify the use of force.

In 1996, Banerjee appeared before the Alipore court in proceedings involving Tollygunje MLA Pankaj Banerjee. He was accused in a case relating to an alleged attack on the Regent Park police station. Banerjee challenged the police account and argued that the prosecution was politically driven.

She also travelled to district courts in cases involving police firing outside Kolkata. In the early 1990s, she appeared before the Balurghat court in Dakshin Dinajpur district in connection with the Kumarganj police firing, in which a student was killed. She argued on behalf of the victim’s side, questioning the police justification for opening fire.

In another case, she appeared before the Chinsurah court in Hooghly district following the death of a party worker in police firing. There too, Banerjee represented the victim’s family and sought action against the police officials involved.

Banerjee holds a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree from Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College under the University of Calcutta.

The CM is not known to have practiced law in the conventional sense. She has, however, said in an interview that she is enrolled with the State Bar Council of West Bengal. The 2023 Members Directory of the Bar Association of Calcutta High Court also shows her name listed as a member.

Her appearance before the Supreme Court in the SIR case adds to a record of personal courtroom interventions that stretches back more than three decades, spanning district courts, magistrate courts and now the apex court.