The Calcutta High Court granted Abhishek Banerjee interim protection till November 30 in a medical-negligence case and warned it may restrain fresh FIRs against him without the Court’s prior leave.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Monday granted interim protection to Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee, directing that no coercive steps be taken against him until November 30 in a case concerning alleged medical negligence, and expressing visible exasperation at the repeated filing of complaints against him indicated that it may pass an order restraining the registration of any fresh FIR against him without the prior leave of the Court [Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Others].
Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, hearing the matter, observed that he had personally read the complaints and found nothing in them prima facie connecting Banerjee to the alleged acts, remarking “enough is enough” and signalling that if the pattern continued he would consider an order on the lines of one passed by a coordinate Bench in the case of Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari. The observations recorded below were made in the course of the hearing; the allegations remain untested, and the Court expressly declined to record any final finding.
‘Enough is enough… I am now fed up’
The judge’s frustration at the recurring litigation was the defining feature of the hearing. Referring to the fact that he had been hearing challenges to successive proceedings against Banerjee since early May, Justice Bhattacharya said:
“Enough is enough. I have been hearing this since May 4. I am now inclined to pass an order on the lines of the one passed by a coordinate Bench in Suvendu Adhikari’s case.”
He went further, indicating that he was minded to require the Court’s permission before any fresh FIR could be lodged:
“I am now fed up. I am going to pass an order that no fresh FIR should be registered against the petitioner without prior leave of this Court. I have personally seen three complaints, and nothing in them appears to connect the petitioner.”
The judge pointed to what he described as a striking feature of the complaints that they emanated repeatedly from the same quarter. “What is going on? The same person who has already lost twice to the petitioner keeps filing complaint after complaint,” he observed, adding that while the State could continue its investigation, custodial interrogation was not required and that the State was “in difficulty” because the Court had personally read the complaint.
The exchange on the ‘fake medicine’ allegation
A pointed exchange followed on the substance of the case, which concerned an allegation relating to fake or substandard medicine. When the Additional Advocate General submitted that the case involved an issue of fake medicine, the judge asked whether Banerjee had himself prescribed it, and again noted that the complaint had been filed by the person who had lost the election against him. When the State described the complainant as a whistleblower, the judge asked pointedly, “Then why was the whistle not blown a year ago?”
The State’s explanation of how it sought to connect Banerjee to the alleged acts drew the judge’s scrutiny. The Additional Advocate General submitted that while Banerjee “may not have personally done anything,” the acts were carried out “through his subordinates,” and that the investigation would ultimately establish the link. Justice Bhattacharya was unpersuaded at the interim stage, observing that the complaint bore no date and no allegation of direct involvement, and that at best it disclosed allegations of irregularities relating to clinical practice asking, “How does that connect him at this stage, before the investigation itself establishes any link?”
The ‘circumventing protection’ argument
Appearing for Banerjee, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan advanced the argument that the fresh FIRs were a device to defeat protection the Court had already granted. He submitted that the Court had extended protection to Banerjee in May and June, yet fresh FIRs had been registered thereafter “exactly what happened in Adhikari’s case,” he said, where fresh FIRs were used to circumvent the Court’s orders. As many as 7 of 16 complaints, he submitted, had been filed by Banerjee’s political opponent.
The Live Court Hearing:
Sankaranarayanan framed the issue as one of institutional concern rather than partisan advantage, telling the Court he did not wish to keep returning with the same grievance and take up judicial time. In a notably even-handed submission, he said: “One political party may have done this in the past, and that was wrong. If another political party is doing the same thing now, that is equally wrong.” The reference cuts both ways in West Bengal’s polarised politics the Suvendu Adhikari precedent he relied upon concerned a BJP leader who had obtained similar protection against the State, whereas Banerjee is a TMC leader; the submission that the tactic is wrong “whoever does it” sought to place the principle above the partisan divide. The Additional Advocate General, for his part, distinguished the Adhikari case on the ground that it had involved a specific prayer to transfer the investigations to the CBI, relief not sought here.
ALSO READ: TMC Bank Accounts: Calcutta High Court Declines Further Relief On Four Frozen Accounts
The order, and the warning
Dictating the order, Justice Bhattacharya recorded the procedural history that in two earlier writ petitions, four criminal proceedings had been challenged, in which the Court had already directed the police not to take coercive steps, and that in one of those petitions, two of the three FIRs had originated from complaints by “respondent no. 6,” recorded in an earlier order as a political rival who had lost an election to the petitioner. Holding that the investigation was at a “nascent stage,” the Court declined to examine the prayer for interim relief in greater detail, expressing the expectation that the investigation would “bring out the true facts.” It recorded that the complaint might, “at best, disclose a prima facie case of medical negligence,” but that it did not prima facie appear that the petitioner was connected with it.
The Court directed the police not to take any coercive steps against Banerjee until November 30, while clarifying that the State was free to issue him notice, and that he would have to appear and cooperate with the investigation. Significantly, the judge added a warning for the future: “If this pattern continues, the Court may consider passing a blanket order restraining registration of any further FIRs against the petitioner without prior leave of the Court.” Sankaranarayanan clarified that the petitioner was not seeking a bar on FIRs as such — only that the State first obtain the Court’s leave. With Banerjee stated to be abroad, the judge observed that the authorities could take the necessary steps after his return. The matter, and the question of whether the Court will ultimately pass the leave-of-court restraint it has signalled, remains to be taken up further.
For the Petitioner (Abhishek Banerjee): Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.
For the State: Additional Advocate General