The Calcutta High Court directed TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee to appear on July 15 for recording his voice sample in an election campaign remarks case. The Court ordered full cooperation with the investigation while directing police to ensure his safety and prevent any harassment.
The Calcutta High Court directed Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee to appear before the jurisdictional magistrate on July 15 for recording of his voice sample in connection with a criminal case arising from remarks allegedly made during his election campaign ahead of the recent West Bengal Assembly elections.
While directing Banerjee to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, the Court also instructed the police to ensure that he is not subjected to any harassment, including physical attacks or egg pelting, during his appearance before the investigating authorities.
The order was passed by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, who reiterated that the interim protection earlier granted to Banerjee against coercive action was conditional upon his full cooperation with the investigation.
Acknowledging concerns regarding the law and order situation in the aftermath of the Assembly elections, the Court directed the police authorities to provide adequate protection to Banerjee when he appears before the magistrate or investigating agency.
The Court ordered,
“Police authorities are directed to take measures so that petitioner will not be victim of egg pelting or any other harassment when the petitioner will appear before the jurisdiction magistrate slash investigating agency for any notices,”
The direction comes against the backdrop of reports that several TMC leaders have allegedly faced physical attacks after the party’s defeat in the recent West Bengal Assembly elections. The High Court also declined to entertain Banerjee’s criminal revision petition challenging the trial court’s order permitting the West Bengal Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to collect his voice sample. Following the Court’s observations during the hearing, Banerjee chose to withdraw the revision petition.
The proceedings arise from comments allegedly made by Abhishek Banerjee during election campaign speeches before the West Bengal Assembly elections. According to the complaint, Banerjee had remarked that once the election results were declared, disc jockeys (DJs) would play music so loudly in celebration that people’s ears would continue ringing.
A voter subsequently filed a criminal complaint alleging that the statement was provocative, intimidating and capable of disturbing public peace. Acting on the complaint, the investigating agency initiated criminal proceedings and later sought permission to collect Banerjee’s voice sample for forensic comparison with the recorded speech. The jurisdictional magistrate allowed the request, leading Banerjee to challenge the order before the High Court.
Earlier Interim Protection Was Conditional: The High Court recalled that on May 21, it had granted Banerjee interim protection from coercive action until July 31, while making it expressly clear that such protection was subject to his cooperation with the investigation.
During Friday’s hearing, Justice Bhattacharyya observed that the direction issued by the investigating agency for recording the voice sample fell within the scope of the earlier order.
The Court observed,
“The decision taken by the authority in connection with the investigation for recording your voice sample or for taking your voice sample comes under the umbrella of my order… Irrespective of this order passed by jurisdictional authority, you are bound to cooperate with the investigation,”
The judge further clarified that the High Court would not examine the merits of the magistrate’s order in the writ proceedings since Banerjee had already been directed to cooperate with every stage of the investigation.
“Now the investigating authority has passed an order or issued a notice for recording of your voice sample… Court has passed an order and granted you a protection subject to compliance with the notices and extending cooperation to the investigating agency. Therefore so far this court is concerned, this court need not enter into the niceties which you are trying to raise before this court in connection with the order passed by the jurisdiction magistrate.”
Court Questions Banerjee’s Legal Strategy:
Justice Bhattacharyya also expressed displeasure over Banerjee filing a criminal revision petition before another Bench while his writ petition concerning the same criminal proceedings remained pending before the present Bench.
The Court observed that such parallel proceedings were inappropriate and reflected poorly on the conduct of the litigation. The judge remarked,
“With pain I am expressing my mind that I passed the order on 21st May 2026. What is troubling me that after that this sort of applications will be filed before other courts, that criminal revisional applications before the other court… it reveals the conduct of the petitioner,”
The Court said that if Banerjee wished to challenge any subsequent developments in the investigation, the proper course would have been to approach the same Bench seeking modification or clarification of the earlier order instead of initiating separate proceedings.
The Court observed,
“You ought to have made an application before this court seeking modification of the order passed by this court. Keeping my order intact passed on 21st May 2026, whether it is permissible to file a criminal revisional application which is offshoot to the offshoot of the same criminal prosecution seeking an order from another court which is contrary to the order passed by this court?”
Justice Bhattacharyya further remarked that the revision petition appeared to have been filed with the objective of delaying the investigation.
“This is nothing but a ploy to frustrate the investigation after obtaining order from writ court.”
Following the Court’s strong observations, Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacherjee, appearing on behalf of Abhishek Banerjee, sought permission to withdraw the criminal revision petition. Taking responsibility for the litigation strategy, the senior counsel told the Court:
“This is our wrong legal advice by us, not by the petitioner.”
With the revision petition withdrawn, the High Court directed Abhishek Banerjee to appear before the jurisdictional magistrate on July 15 for recording of his voice sample.
At the same time, the Court ensured that the police provide adequate protection so that he is able to cooperate with the investigation without facing intimidation or physical harassment.
The matter forms part of the ongoing investigation into allegations arising from Banerjee’s election campaign speech, while the interim protection from coercive action granted earlier continues to remain subject to his complete cooperation with the investigating agency.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE