Is there any rule that bars the State from holding its review committee before six months? The Calcutta High Court put that question orally while reserving its order on the Abhishek Banerjee security downgrade plea, in which the Trinamool Congress MP says he has faced attacks on himself and his family since his cover was cut from Z+ to X.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Thursday, November 12, 2026, reserved orders on a writ petition by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee against the reduction of his security from Z+ to X category, which took effect on May 12, shortly after the new State Government was sworn in on May 9. In the course of the hearing, the State also urged the Court to start suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against him over a televised interview [Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.].
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya heard the matter. The observations reported below were made orally during the hearing, and the Court has not yet ruled on the plea.
The Court’s questions on the wait for review
The Court asked whether the May 29 review had considered the incidents reported after the downgrade, and where the authorities had recorded a finding that there was no threat. It then put the point to the State directly:
“The question is, you have received a request, these incidents have happened, is there any rule that you cannot hold the review committee before six months?”
“Once you have reduced, then also reconsider.”
The Court also asked the State to take note of the incidents placed on record and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Petitioner: downgrade without committee decision
Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee, appearing for Banerjee, submitted that his client had held Z+ security since 2013 on the basis of threat perception. According to him, no meeting of the competent Security Review Committee, which alone could change the category, preceded the downgrade, and the authorities acted on a mere recommendation. The haste, he said, gave rise to a presumption of mala fides.
He alleged that six attacks had since taken place against Banerjee and his family, that police pickets outside his residence and office had been removed, and that a JCB machine had been brought on Thursday morning to demolish the police post outside his home. Banerjee, he said, feared a possible political assassination and was only seeking an emergency review.
State: no right to a particular category
Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya opposed the plea, submitting that security of a particular category cannot be claimed as a matter of right. A review, he said, was held on May 29 after the May 12 reduction, assessments are ordinarily done every six months, and the next one is due at the end of November. He submitted that Z+ cover is generally given to certain constitutional functionaries such as the Chief Minister and the Governor, that Banerjee had been placed in X category in the absence of a specific threat assessment from Kolkata Police, and that several other MPs also have X-category security.
State seeks suo motu contempt over interview
At the outset of the hearing, the AAG placed a transcript and a pen drive of an interview given by Banerjee, submitting that he had cast aspersions on the judiciary by naming a judge and that this amounted to criminal contempt. “This case is covered under the Contempt of Courts Act. This cannot go on,” the AAG submitted.
Bhattacharjee replied that the interview had no connection with the relief sought, that the remarks were an expression of exasperation made after attacks on Banerjee’s residence while his wife and children were inside, and that his client should not be denied protection of his Article 21 rights because of it.
The Court questioned the remarks, observing that Banerjee is an educated person and a sitting MP who could not be treated as an ordinary layperson, and that if he was aggrieved by an earlier order he could have approached another bench, including the vacation benches. “You ask your client, who are the judges with the BJP and who aren’t… since he is so intelligent, let him give a list. I will see,” the Court remarked. It, however, made clear that the interview would not derail the security grievance:
“Because of one publication, the writ petition should not be affected. I will take into account everything and pass orders.”
The allegations of attacks and mala fides are the petitioner’s and are contested by the State. No decision has been taken on the State’s request for contempt proceedings.
Why the hearing matters
The case tests whether a State, after reducing an individual’s security, can wait for a fixed periodic review even when fresh threat inputs are placed before it. The Court’s questions suggest that a scheduled review cycle may not answer specific complaints of later incidents. The ruling will also be watched for how the Court separates a security claim under Article 21 from a separate request to act on the petitioner’s public remarks about judges.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Bench: Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, Calcutta High Court
Date of Hearing: November 12, 2026 (order reserved)
For the Petitioner: Ayan Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate
For the State: Billwadal Bhattacharya, Additional Advocate General