The Supreme Court declined Mahua Moitra’s plea to appear virtually before the IO in a Facebook post FIR, with Justice Datta remarking, “Having taken the plunge into politics, you are afraid of eggs?
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra seeking permission to appear virtually before the Investigating Officer in connection with an FIR registered over an allegedly provocative Facebook post, with the Bench observing that an elected representative who had entered politics could not seek to stay away from the investigation merely for fear of protests [Mahua Moitra v. State of West Bengal and Others].
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu heard the matter, and ultimately dismissed the plea as withdrawn after indicating that the appropriate remedy lay before the Calcutta High Court.
The submission
Appearing for Moitra, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the Court that the FIR arose from a Facebook post, and sought permission for his client to join the investigation through video conferencing.
When Justice Datta asked why she was unwilling to appear before the Investigating Officer in person, and whether the request for a virtual appearance was on account of her being a Member of Parliament, counsel submitted that she had a legal right to seek it. He explained that the police notice required her to present herself at the police station within her own constituency, and that her earlier attempts to do so had drawn hostility:
“I have a legal right under the law. The police notice requires the petitioner to appear at the police station in her own constituency. The last time she went there, two things happened. First, there were threats that eggs would be thrown at her. The second time, eggs were actually thrown.”
‘Having taken the plunge into politics, you are afraid of eggs?’
The Bench was unpersuaded. Declining to treat the apprehension of protest as a ground for exemption, and framing the point in pointed terms, Justice Datta remarked:
“You are a Member of Parliament? Having taken the plunge into politics, you are afraid of eggs? Our freedom fighters took bullets on their chests. These are applications that should not come before this Court at all.”
The Bench directed counsel’s attention to the impugned order, indicating that the remedy lay elsewhere:
“Read paragraph 19 of the impugned order. If you do not appear, then face the consequences before the High Court. If you are aggrieved, you may come before us.”
Faced with the Court’s disinclination to entertain the plea, Sankaranarayanan sought leave to withdraw the petition, and the Court dismissed it as withdrawn.
What the High Court had ordered
The plea before the Supreme Court arose from proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court. On July 23, a single judge had granted Moitra interim protection from arrest, subject to her cooperation with the investigation, and directed her to appear before the Investigating Officer on August 14, after the conclusion of the Monsoon Session of Parliament.
Taking note of her apprehension that she had earlier faced protests and egg-pelting while appearing before the police, the High Court had directed the West Bengal Police to ensure her safety during the investigation. While extending the interim protection to the next date, the Court had made clear that she was required to cooperate with the probe by presenting herself before the Investigating Officer.
It was against that backdrop — the direction to appear in person on August 14 — that Moitra approached the Supreme Court seeking to join the investigation virtually instead, a request the apex court has now declined to entertain, leaving her to pursue her remedies before the High Court.
Background of the case
The FIR concerns a complaint alleging that remarks made by Moitra, circulated on social media, wounded religious sentiments and tended to foment communal disharmony. The proceedings form part of the same investigation in which she had earlier secured interim protection from coercive action before the Calcutta High Court, on the footing that the offences alleged carried a sentence of less than seven years and that she was entitled to the attendant statutory safeguards. The allegations remain at the stage of investigation, and nothing has been adjudicated against her.
For the Petitioner: Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Supreme Court
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE