The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee challenging the reduction of his security cover from Z-plus to X category. The court questioned why the West Bengal government had not conducted a fresh threat assessment despite receiving complaints about alleged attacks on the MP and his family.
Justice Krishna Rao sought an explanation from the state authorities for not convening an interim security review committee meeting after Banerjee reported several incidents and requested additional protection.
The court noted that the security downgrade had taken place on May 12, just three days after the new government assumed office on May 9. It asked whether any rule prevented the authorities from reviewing security arrangements before the completion of the usual six-month interval.
Banerjee Alleges Politically Motivated Security Downgrade
Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, representing Banerjee, argued that the reduction in security was politically motivated and had been undertaken at the instance of the ruling party.
He submitted that Banerjee had received Z-plus protection since 2013 following a threat assessment. However, his security was subsequently reduced to X category without any meeting or deliberation by the authorised security review committee.
According to Alam, Banerjee and his family had faced six attacks following the downgrade, but the authorities had failed to respond to repeated requests for enhanced protection.
The senior advocate also alleged that police pickets stationed outside Banerjee’s residence and office had been removed.
Referring to an incident on Thursday morning, Alam informed the court that a JCB machine had been brought to Banerjee’s residence around 6.30 am to demolish a police post. He described the action as malicious and expressed concern over the MP’s safety amid alleged incidents of violence following the change in government.
Alam maintained that the sudden withdrawal of higher security protection had left Banerjee concerned about the safety of his family.
State Says Z-Plus Security Cannot Be Claimed as a Right
Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya, appearing for the West Bengal government, opposed the petition and submitted that an individual could not demand a particular category of security as a matter of right.
He argued that the police had received no specific threat assessment justifying Z-plus security for the Diamond Harbour MP.
The state informed the court that a security review had been conducted on May 29, following the May 12 downgrade. Bhattacharya explained that such assessments ordinarily took place every six months and that the next review was scheduled for the end of November.
He further submitted that most Members of Parliament received X-category security and that providing Z-plus protection involved significant public expenditure.
Court Seeks Explanation for Absence of Interim Review
Justice Rao questioned why the state had not reassessed Banerjee’s security after receiving representations concerning incidents allegedly occurring after the downgrade.
The court asked whether any statutory or procedural restriction prevented the security review committee from meeting before the scheduled six-month assessment.
It also sought clarification on whether the authorities had considered the incidents cited by Banerjee and, if so, why they had not found them sufficient to justify increased protection.
Additional Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi, representing the Centre, submitted that Banerjee had been discharged from hospital without injuries following some of the alleged incidents.
The court questioned how the absence of injuries could justify not conducting a fresh threat assessment, observing that subsequent developments needed to be considered when reviewing security arrangements.
State Seeks Contempt Action Over Remarks Against Judiciary
During the hearing, the West Bengal government also requested the court to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against Banerjee over a publication allegedly casting aspersions on a section of the judiciary.
Justice Rao indicated that the publication would not influence the adjudication of the writ petition and that the court would consider all relevant material before passing its order.
After hearing submissions from Banerjee, the state government and the Centre, the High Court reserved its decision on the petition challenging the security downgrade.
