In a courtroom showdown that had all the makings of high drama, legal heavyweights Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta went head-to-head in the Supreme Court over the explosive RG Kar case.

But as the legal titans sparred Thursday, the real buzz wasn't just about their fiery exchanges -- it was about the sheer size of Bengal’s legal representation. Critics charged the state's army of lawyers was an attempt to secure a clean chit for the government.

Over 20 lawyers were marshalled to defend West Bengal, including star advocate Sibal and Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy and Mamata Banerjee’s legal advisor, Sanjay Basu, among them.

Bengal’s formidable legal lineup drew fire on social media including X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, where users criticised the spectacle. They charged that the full weight of the state government was being wheeled out to establish it had done nothing wrong.

Some “21 lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, are defending the West Bengal Government’s abuse of power – trying to silence a family seeking justice,” one X user pointedly remarked, encapsulating widespread concern that the state government is pulling out all the stops to exonerate itself.

“The state has revealed that now it is no more about the horror of murder and rape but about defending Bengal. Why? What is at stake?” a sound engineer from Calcutta wrote on Facebook.

In the WhatsApp group formed by students and alumni of a premier educational institution of the Bengal capital to organise a protest march on the RG Kar case, one person wrote in Bengali: “It didn’t hurt when the state government paid Lakkhir Bhandar from my money; to see it going for Sibal and Co. makes my skin crawl.”

The central government was represented by a team of five lawyers, including Solicitor General Mehta.

In the courtroom, Solicitor General Mehta didn’t mince words, launching a scathing critique of the Bengal government’s handling of the aftermath of the brutal rape and murder that has horrified the nation.

He accused the state of failing to protect the crime scene and allowing chaos to ensue in a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth. “The crime scene is within the hospital’s precincts. What are the police doing?”

Answering his own question, Mehta continued, charging that the police were “allowing vandals to enter the hospital. It is impossible that 7,000 people can gather without the knowledge or consent of the government.”

The court also zeroed in on the questionable timing of the post-mortem, conducted before a case of unnatural death was even registered. Mehta also angrily accused Sibal of laughing when this issue was raised.

“Somebody has lost their life. At least do not laugh,” he admonished, to which Sibal retorted that Mehta was playing to the gallery.

The case was heard by a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Chandrachud, Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

Outside the courtroom, the political battle intensified with chief minister Mamata Banerjee writing to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. She underscored the fact that around 90 rapes take place daily in India and demanded swift and exemplary punishment.

“It is horrifying that almost 90 cases of rape occur daily in the country,” Banerjee said. Her letter called for the “setting up of Fast Track Special Courts for speedy trial in such cases”. To ensure quick justice, “trials in such cases should preferably be completed within 15 days,” she said.

Banerjee also strongly pushed for central legislation. “Such a serious and sensitive issue needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner through stringent central legislation prescribing exemplary punishment against the persons involved.”

Inside the court, Sibal attempted to emphasise that the Supreme Court hearing was a quest for truth and about seeking a way forward rather than a typical adversarial proceeding.

But Mehta remained laser-focused on the gravity of the crime, stressing the need for justice for the young doctor who was viciously attacked. “Your lordships are looking at a larger picture but we are dealing with a young doctor who was raped by a person who was not only a sexual pervert but who had an animal-like instinct,” he said, all the while cautioning against politicising the case.

“I don’t wish to make this a political issue. I would request the state to also not be in a denial mode,” he said.

Mehta also claimed the CBI had found that the crime scene had been altered. Countered Sibal: “Nothing is altered. This is entirely accusatory.”

But Justice Pardiwala expressed deep concern over the state government’s handling of the rape and its aftermath. “The entire procedure followed by your state is something which I have not come across.”

Chief Justice Chandrachud also raised doubts about the state’s actions, particularly the questionable transfer of the RG Kar Medical College principal involved. “After the principal resigns from this college, he is appointed as the principal of another college,” he pointed out.

Sibal responded by telling the court that the state government would act according to the chief justice’s instructions. “Whatever your lordship says, we will do. An SIT has been constituted.”

The Supreme Court is set to resume hearings on the high-stakes case on September 5. With the court already raising serious concerns about the state government and local police's handling of the case, particularly the delay in filing the FIR and crime scene management, the next steps in the hearing will be closely watched.