Mahua Moitra MPLADS plea: a day’s notice to the Nadia administration, and Circuit House accommodation “as per protocol”, is what the Supreme Court has recorded, even as the Bench remarked that the September 1 circular reads as a retaliatory letter.
New Delhi: A day’s notice to the Nadia district administration, after which the necessary accommodation at the Circuit House may be provided: that is the arrangement the Supreme Court recorded on Friday, October 16, for Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s visits to her Krishnanagar constituency, in her writ petition alleging obstruction by the West Bengal government in her work under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) [Mahua Moitra v. Union of India and Others].
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for Moitra, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondents.
The order the Court dictated
In the order it dictated, the Court framed two issues: the September 1 circular on advance notice for accommodation, and the alleged non-cooperation of the district administration in carrying out MPLADS work. On the first, it recorded that Moitra will tell the district administration a day before she visits, after which the necessary accommodation at the Circuit House may be provided, “as per protocol.”
The Solicitor General asked for the words “subject to availability” to be added, saying, “We can’t throw out somebody if someone is occupying.” Justice Bagchi said: “We will not say anything.” When the Solicitor General said, “Somebody will have to be thrown out,” CJI Surya Kant observed:
“She will have preferential right to stay, not because she is an MP but because she’s representative of that constituency.”
Sankaranarayanan kept making submissions while the order was being dictated, and Justice Bagchi asked him to be patient, observing that he was doing what he disliked being done to him. “If you take over reins of the court, we cannot… please have patience,” the judge said.
The remark came days after Sankaranarayanan stepped away from all seven protest-related cases in which he was appearing before the Supreme Court, citing among other reasons repeated interruptions during the Delhi protests hearing.
The directions, if any, on the stalled MPLADS projects were not available at the time of writing; the written order is awaited.
How the hearing opened
The Solicitor General began by denying that Moitra had been evicted from the Nadia Circuit House. The building was under maintenance, he said, as she had herself acknowledged, and no officer had physically approached her to make her shift.
CJI Surya Kant said the dispute did not belong in court:
“These are not issues which should come to court. Only small SOP required.”
The CJI told Sankaranarayanan that a visit without warning could cause embarrassment, and suggested advance notice, though not necessarily a week. The Solicitor General replied: “48 hours’ notice can be given.”
The September 1 circular
The Bench then took up the September 1 circular, which asks MPs and MLAs from Nadia district to give three to four days’ notice before using the Circuit House. CJI Surya Kant remarked that it amounted to “targeting one individual MP.”
The Solicitor General disagreed: “It was not for one MP, but for the district. Let me dispel the notion that it was for one MP.”
Justice Bagchi responded:
“We would like you to withdraw this. She is the member from that district.”
“It is for everyone… all officials. I can withdraw,” the Solicitor General said. Pointing to the words “recent incidents relating to…” in the circular, Justice Bagchi observed: “First para shows it’s a retaliatory letter.” He added that the Court would clarify that an SOP should cover anyone availing government accommodation.
Notice, precedence and reserved rooms
Sankaranarayanan submitted that arrangements had worked smoothly for the last ten years on three to four hours’ notice, as they did for other MPs. He said Moitra ranks above the Chief Secretary in the order of precedence, and that other rooms at the Circuit House were occupied but their occupants were not asked to vacate. He urged that one room be reserved for an MP or MLA.
The Solicitor General opposed a reservation: “I would not be in favor of reserving for one category, except Governor, Chief Justice and Chief Minister.” He suggested that a protocol be framed instead.
Justice Bagchi said the issue should be ironed out without inconveniencing the MP or anyone else. CJI Surya Kant noted: “This circular says advance notice of 3–4 days. Mr Gopal, you can also inform a day before.” The Solicitor General said: “If it’s available, you can walk in and get a room. If there’s no room, problem arises.”
Eighteen stalled projects, and a sharp exchange
On the MPLADS work, Sankaranarayanan told the Court that 18 projects were stalled and asked for a direction to the administration to cooperate with Moitra’s work as MP. Some schools needed roofs, he said.
When the Solicitor General remarked, “This is for somewhere else,” Sankaranarayanan replied: “Please Mr Mehta, I don’t deal with somewhere else. Let’s maintain decorum.” Turning to the Bench, he added: “He’s new here.”
The Solicitor General asked whether a BJP MP would approach the Court in similar circumstances and alleged: “This is happening with coordination.” The Bench replied that it was “bothered about beneficiaries.”
“Political problems can’t be solved in Article 32,” the Solicitor General argued. Justice Bagchi answered:
“We are not here enforcing your fundamental right. We are trying to protect beneficiaries’ rights.”
Background
Moitra, who represents Krishnanagar in Nadia district, moved the Supreme Court alleging that her MPLADS work was being obstructed and that district officials made her leave the Circuit House even after a room had been allotted to her. In an August 14 post on social media, she said a large crowd had gathered outside the Circuit House after she refused to leave, and she later wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking his intervention.
On October 1, the Court gave the Union and the State of West Bengal time to reply. The Solicitor General questioned the maintainability of the petition at that hearing, while Justice Bagchi flagged the September 1 letter requiring three days’ notice. On October 15, Moitra’s counsel pressed for interim relief so that she could stay at the Circuit House during Durga Puja; the Solicitor General sought time and asked that the matter be listed on Friday so that he could make a statement.
Moitra’s allegations of obstruction, and the Solicitor General’s allegation that the petition is politically coordinated, are the parties’ contentions. They remain untested, and the Court has not ruled on the merits of the MPLADS dispute.
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Union of India and Others (descriptive title; case number not available)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Hearing: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the respondents