A fresh political controversy has emerged during an ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court of India, with the Trinamool Congress (TMC) alleging that courtroom proceedings are being misused for political campaigning on social media. The issue was raised by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who was representing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in a case related to a raid at a political consultancy firm.
During the hearing in New Delhi, Guruswamy strongly objected to the circulation of a video clip on social media that, according to her, misrepresented her arguments before the court. The clip, which went viral, was shared by Amit Malviya and suggested that the lawyer had referred to the Chief Minister as a “queen.” Guruswamy clarified that her statements were taken out of context and were part of a legal explanation about constitutional principles, not a personal reference.
The exchange in question occurred when Guruswamy was explaining the concept of “mandamus” and how it functioned historically in pre-constitutional systems. While referring to legal doctrines involving the “crown,” she used illustrative language to explain how authority operated in monarchies. However, this argument was interpreted differently on social media, sparking political reactions and debate.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), questioned the analogy, asking who exactly was being referred to as the “queen.” The exchange led to a brief moment of tension in the courtroom, but the hearing continued with further legal arguments.
Guruswamy later emphasized before the bench that her submissions had been distorted to create a misleading narrative. She stated that legal discussions were being selectively edited and circulated online to serve political interests, especially during an active election period. According to her, such actions undermine the sanctity of judicial proceedings and risk turning serious legal debates into tools for political propaganda.
The case itself revolves around a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, which is seeking further investigation into an incident involving the Chief Minister’s visit to a raid site in Kolkata earlier this year. The central agency has alleged interference and has called for a deeper probe into the matter. However, Guruswamy argued that the petition lacks legal grounds and should not be entertained.
The Supreme Court had earlier observed that the conduct of a state leader during a raid does not automatically escalate into a Centre-State conflict. This observation has been a key point in the defence’s argument, which maintains that the matter is being unnecessarily politicized.
The timing of the controversy is also significant, as it coincided with ongoing elections in West Bengal. Political parties are actively campaigning, and any developments in high-profile cases tend to gain immediate attention. Guruswamy pointed out that using courtroom exchanges for political messaging during such a sensitive period raises concerns about fairness and public perception.
Meanwhile, the ruling party has defended the circulation of the video, stating that public figures and their representatives must be accountable for their statements. The issue has now become part of a broader political debate, with both sides accusing each other of misusing institutions for electoral advantage.
Legal experts have noted that while court proceedings are public, selectively presenting arguments without full context can lead to misunderstanding and controversy. They stress the importance of responsible communication, especially when dealing with matters before the judiciary.
