The Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim protection from coercive action to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee in connection with an FIR registered over his alleged remarks against Union Home Minister Amit Shah during an election rally ahead of the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed the West Bengal Police not to take any coercive steps against Banerjee till July 31, subject to his cooperation with the investigation.
The Court further ordered Banerjee to comply with all notices issued by the investigating authorities and ordered that any notice for appearance must be issued at least 48 hours in advance. Banerjee was directed not to travel abroad without prior permission of the High Court. Justice Bhattacharyya clarified that in the event of non-cooperation by Banerjee, the State authorities would be at liberty to approach the Court for modification of the interim order.
Banerjee moved the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him over statements allegedly made during election rallies. According to the complaint, Banerjee made provocative speeches targeting opposition workers and allegedly issued threatening remarks against Amit Shah during a roadshow held on April 7.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, appearing for Banerjee, argued that the criminal case amounted to malicious prosecution and contended that the FIR had been lodged following the change in political regime in the State.
During the hearing, the High Court strongly criticised the nature of the remarks allegedly made by Banerjee and questioned the propriety of such statements being made by a sitting Member of Parliament and senior political leader during an election campaign.
The single-judge Bench referred to the history of post-poll violence in West Bengal and observed that such statements could potentially aggravate political tensions. It further remarked that the alleged comments were inappropriate and unnecessary, particularly in the context of the State’s political atmosphere.
In response, Banerjee’s counsel argued that no material had been placed on record to show that the alleged statements had directly resulted in any incident of violence. It was contended that in the absence of any resulting incident, the allegations did not justify criminal prosecution.
The Court, however, reiterated its concern over the language allegedly used by Banerjee and observed that public representatives were expected to exercise restraint in political speeches.
The State government, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumder, opposed the grant of interim protection and submitted that there was no immediate apprehension of illegal action by the investigating agency, as the law already provided procedural safeguards.
Senior Advocate Bilwadal Bhattacharyya, appearing for the complainant, opposed the plea and argued that incidents of violence had occurred following the statements attributed to Banerjee.
