The Calcutta High Court has deferred hearing on a petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee seeking protection from coercive police action in eight separate cases until July 30, declining to grant interim relief at this stage.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed the Diamond Harbour lawmaker’s legal team to immediately inform the court if any action is taken against him under the eight first information reports before the next hearing. The bench verbally noted that protection could not be extended immediately, citing the long period these prosecution matters have remained pending.
Rejection Of Precedent And Procedural Objections
During the proceedings, the court ruled that Banerjee’s counsel cannot cite Suvendu Adhikari as a comparative precedent, maintaining that legal prayers must be evaluated strictly on a case-by-case basis.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the TMC MP, had argued that protection should be extended to Banerjee similar to the relief previously granted to Adhikari across 17 FIRs when he was Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal assembly, which included a directive requiring court permission for future FIRs.
The court also questioned how eight distinct matters could be combined into a single filing. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the West Bengal government, similarly objected to challenging multiple FIRs in one petition and requested an adjournment so the Solicitor General could present arguments on behalf of the state.
Scope Of FIRs And Previous Court Protections
Clarifying the approach, Sibal stated that the defense is not seeking unified protection, but intends to present arguments based on the individual facts of each FIR.
The eight cases in question involve complaints lodged across multiple police stations in West Bengal, including Bhabanipur in Kolkata, Siliguri, Kalitala, and Bishnupur in South 24 Parganas district.
Sibal noted that these cases are separate from other matters where the High Court has already granted Banerjee protection from coercive action, such as a signature forgery case regarding the selection of the assembly Leader of Opposition and an alleged intimidatory speech case during an assembly campaign.
