The Calcutta High Court has reserved its verdict on Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee’s petition challenging the West Bengal government’s decision to downgrade his security cover from Z-plus to X, after questioning the timing of the decision and whether alleged attacks against him had been properly assessed.
Justice Krishna Rao concluded the hearing on Thursday. The court also examined the state government’s decision to raise alleged remarks about the judiciary made by Banerjee in a recent media interview during arguments on the security petition.
The state’s counsel played an audio clip before the court and argued that a public representative could not question the impartiality of judges. “How can a people’s representative make such adverse comments about judges? He has practically challenged the impartiality of judges,” the state’s counsel submitted, according to the report.
Banerjee’s lawyer, Ayan Bhattacharya, argued that the interview had no bearing on the security petition and should not influence the court’s decision. Justice Rao questioned the remarks attributed to the MP and observed that a people’s representative should be careful while making comments about the judiciary. The judge later clarified that the interview controversy would not influence the decision on the security petition and would be dealt with separately.
Bhattacharya told the court that the present government was formed on May 9 and that Banerjee’s security cover was downgraded on May 12. Since then, he said, the MP had faced six attacks, with the latest incident reported outside his home in Kalighat. The lawyer argued that Banerjee’s existing security arrangement was inadequate because he lived with his wife and child, and sought an interim direction restoring Z-plus security until the state completed a fresh assessment.
The court questioned the timing of the security decision. The state government told the court that the proposal was made on May 12, while the security review was conducted on May 29. Justice Rao also asked why five specific threats cited by the petitioner had not been examined by the joint commissioner of police in charge of security.
The judge said the court could not decide the category of security to be provided to an individual, but added that allegations of repeated attacks needed to be assessed by the authorities. The state submitted that security reviews were conducted every six months and that the next assessment was scheduled for the end of November. Justice Rao questioned whether the authorities could wait for the routine review when the petitioner was alleging repeated attacks in the intervening period.
The Centre’s counsel told the court that Banerjee’s security arrangements were entirely the responsibility of the state government and that the Union government had no role in the matter. Bhattacharya reiterated the plea for restoration of Z-plus security until a fresh assessment was completed.
The court reserved its verdict after concluding the hearing. The decision will determine the immediate legal status of Banerjee’s challenge to the downgrade and the questions raised during the hearing about the timing and adequacy of the state’s security assessment process.
