The Calcutta High Court has reserved its judgment on Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee’s petition challenging the reduction of his security cover, after the state cited his remarks about the judiciary during the hearing and sought contempt proceedings against him.
Justice Krishna Rao questioned Banerjee’s comments in an interview in which he had raised doubts about the impartiality of parts of the judiciary. The judge told Banerjee’s lawyer to ask the MP to submit a list of the judges he believed were aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party, according to the report placed before the court.
Banerjee had approached the High Court after his security category was reduced from Z-plus to X following a change in the state government. His lawyers argued that the reduction was politically motivated and claimed that the decision had been taken at the direction of political leaders.
During the hearing, state Additional Advocate General Bilwadal Bhattacharya produced the interview in which Banerjee discussed the security issue and questioned the neutrality of parts of the judiciary. He argued that the remarks amounted to contempt of court and asked the court to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings.
Banerjee’s lawyer disputed the relevance of the interview to the main petition and argued that the state was attempting to divert the court’s attention from the security challenge. The lawyer also alleged that Banerjee had been targeted deliberately and said that his residence had been vandalised at around 2 a.m. He claimed that Banerjee’s security had been reduced after he lost an election and that there had been six attacks on him.
The counsel further alleged a deterioration in the rule of law in the state and said the police had not taken adequate action. The arguments were made while seeking restoration of the earlier security arrangement.
Justice Rao said the court could not be treated as an institution that could be misled and questioned the basis of the remarks made in the interview. The judge also observed that Banerjee was an educated person and a Member of Parliament, and therefore could not be considered in the same manner as an ordinary citizen for the purposes of the issue before the court.
The judge further said that if Banerjee had not received relief from the bench hearing the matter, he could have approached another bench. The court also noted that several benches had functioned during the vacation period.
In the interview cited during the hearing, Banerjee alleged that pressure was being applied to prevent his security-related case from being heard. He also alleged that sections of the judiciary had been influenced by the BJP and questioned the functioning of the judicial system. The report did not indicate that the court had formally initiated contempt proceedings against him.
The immediate legal issue remains Banerjee’s challenge to the reduction of his security cover. The court has reserved its judgment, leaving the continuation of his X-category security and the state’s response to the petition pending.
