The Calcutta High Court restrained West Bengal Police from taking coercive action against Abhishek Banerjee till July 31 over remarks allegedly targeting Amit Shah, while directing Banerjee to cooperate with the investigation and seek permission before travelling abroad.
The Calcutta High Court directed the West Bengal Police not to take any coercive action against MP Abhishek Banerjee till July 31 in connection with an FIR registered over remarks allegedly made by him against Union Home Minister Amit Shah during the recent West Bengal Assembly election campaign.
The interim protection was granted by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya while hearing Banerjee’s plea seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him. The Court clarified that the protection was conditional upon Banerjee cooperating with the investigation. It also directed him not to travel abroad without prior permission of the Court and instructed the police to issue notices at least 48 hours in advance before requiring his appearance.
The Court ordered,
“At this stage, the Court directs the police not to take any coercive action against the petitioner (Banerjee) till July 31. However, the petitioner has to cooperate with the investigation. In the event the petitioner doesn’t cooperate, concerned State respondents shall be at liberty to approach Court,”
The Court added,
“Petitioner shall comply with (police) notices. Notices shall be issued giving at least 48 hours to the petitioner,”
Factual Backgrounds:
The criminal case against Banerjee stems from statements allegedly made by him during election rallies and roadshows conducted in the run-up to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly elections. The complainant accused the Trinamool Congress leader of delivering provocative speeches directed at opposition party workers and allegedly threatening Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
During the hearing, reference was made to remarks allegedly delivered by Banerjee at a roadshow held on April 7.
Banerjee remarked,
“I will see who comes to save them on May 4. I will see which godfather (allegedly referring to Amit Shah) from Delhi comes to their rescue.”
The complainant argued that the remarks had the potential to incite political hostility and violence during the sensitive election period.
Contentions of Parties:
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, appearing for Abhishek Banerjee, argued that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings were politically motivated and initiated only after the change in political power in West Bengal. He contended that the case amounted to “malicious prosecution” aimed at targeting opposition leaders following the Assembly election results.
Bandyopadhyay submitted,
“This is against malicious prosecution immediately after the change of power,”
ALSO READ: TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee Appeals Against ED Summons in Supreme Court
Bandyopadhyay further submitted that the allegations against Banerjee were based solely on political speeches delivered during election campaigning and that the complainant had failed to show any actual consequence or incident directly linked to the remarks. According to him, unless there was evidence demonstrating that the statements had led to violence or public disorder, criminal proceedings could not be justified merely on the basis of political rhetoric.
Bandyopadhyay argued,
“The question is, was there effect of statement at all? Complainant has not cited any incident. If nothing has happened, it cannot be taken into cognisance,”
The High Court, however, expressed concern over the language allegedly used by Banerjee during the campaign. Referring to West Bengal’s history of political clashes and post-poll violence, the Bench questioned whether such statements were appropriate for a senior political leader and sitting Member of Parliament. The Court observed that political leaders are expected to exercise restraint, particularly during elections when tensions are already high.
At one stage, the Court questioned what the situation could have been had the election results been different. In response, Bandyopadhyay remarked that there may have been “complete peace.” The Court disagreed with this submission and observed that the political history of the State suggested otherwise by saying “Political history does not say so”. Bandyopadhyay then countered by saying that political violence and tensions could not be viewed from only one side of the political spectrum.
Despite the defence put forward by Banerjee’s counsel, the Court repeatedly questioned “Whether such controversial remarks and alleged slurs were necessary at all during an election campaign“. The Bench indicated that statements capable of escalating political hostility were undesirable, irrespective of the political party involved.
Opposing the plea for interim protection, Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumder argued on behalf of the State government that Banerjee did not require any special protection from the Court because adequate safeguards already existed under criminal law.
He said,
“Protection is not required. He is protected by law,”
According to the State, the investigation was being carried out in accordance with law and there was no immediate threat of unlawful action against the MP.
Banerjee’s legal team, however, maintained that without judicial protection there remained a genuine apprehension of harassment during the course of the investigation, especially given the prevailing political circumstances in the State.
Read Also: Abhishek Banerjee | SC Grants TMC MP’s Request to Avoid ED Summons During Elections
Senior Advocate Bilwadal Bhattacharyya, appearing for the complainant, disputed Banerjee’s claims and argued that incidents of violence had in fact taken place after the alleged remarks were made. He urged the Court not to interfere with the ongoing investigation at this preliminary stage. Senior Advocate Dhiraj Trivedi also represented the State during the proceedings.
Observations of the Court:
Although the High Court granted interim protection, the Bench expressed serious concern over the nature of the statements allegedly made by Banerjee.
The Court asked during the hearing,
“Why these statements were made? … Why these irresponsible statements were made just before elections? There is black history so far as this State is concerned … Post poll violence. In media also, everywhere it was shown. Does it match the status of the petitioner (Abhishek Banerjee) being general secretary of political party?”
The Court repeatedly observed that such statements appeared inappropriate for a Member of Parliament and senior political leader.
The Court asked,
“Being a Member of Parliament, how such statement could have been made. That strikes conscience of court. I am repeating, these statements were uncalled for. What would have happened, if there were different results?”
The Bench also referred to the political history of violence in West Bengal during and after elections while questioning the necessity of such rhetoric during campaigns.
Referring to the recent political developments in the State, where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) formed the government after years of All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) rule, the Court observed:
“With a lot of expectations, people brought change. Time will say.”
The matter is expected to be taken up again after the expiry of the interim protection period granted by the Court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE