Hearing a writ petition by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra alleging obstruction in executing Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme work in her Krishnanagar constituency, the Supreme Court has granted the Union and the State of West Bengal time to file their counter, after the Solicitor General objected to its maintainability and the Bench said it was ‘just sharing’ its concern over a letter on notice for visits to a Circuit House; the allegations are yet to be tested.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Union of India and the State of West Bengal to file a counter to a writ petition filed by Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra, who claims that she is being obstructed in carrying out work under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) in her Krishnanagar constituency [Mahua Moitra v. State of West Bengal].
A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order on October 1, 2026 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 390 of 2026.
Maintainability objection
Appearing for both the Union and the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta objected to the maintainability of the petition. He submitted that there are more than 500 Members of Parliament, and that if each of them were to approach the Court for implementation of the scheme, it would create difficulty. He also asked the Court not to issue notice, saying it would create sensationalism, and told the Bench that the State would file its counter, responding to the letters, by next week.
‘Just sharing our concern’
Justice Bagchi asked the Solicitor General whether he had seen a letter of September 1, 2026, which, as he described it, requires an MP visiting the Circuit House to inform the authorities three days in advance. He said:
“We are just sharing our concern. Have you seen the 1st September letter? That if a Member of Parliament comes to the Circuit House, she must inform 3 days before.”
Order of the Court
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the petitioner, sought a clarification on whether the Solicitor General was appearing for the State or the Union, and was told that he appears for both. The Court then recorded the position in its order:
“Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan contends that the petitioner is a member of parliament. Mr Mehta, learned Solicitor General enters appearance and seeks time to file counter. Rejoinder, if any, for another one week. Item will appear after next two weeks.”
Why the order matters
The Court has recorded no finding on the allegation of obstruction, and its order does not decide the objection to maintainability. It only fixes the timeline for the Union and the State to file their counter, gives the petitioner a week to respond and lists the matter after two weeks.
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. State of West Bengal [W.P. (Crl.) No. 390 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union of India and the State of West Bengal