Calcutta High Court’s Directive on Voice Sample Submission
The Calcutta High Court has mandated Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee to present himself before the jurisdictional magistrate on July 15 to provide a voice sample. This requirement is part of the ongoing investigation into his remarks during the West Bengal Assembly election campaign. The court, under the guidance of Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, emphasized Banerjee’s obligation to cooperate with the investigation, aligning with a previous court directive.
Protection from Harassment
In its ruling, the court instructed the police to ensure Banerjee’s safety from harassment or egg pelting upon his appearance before the authorities. This precautionary measure is in response to instances of physical attacks faced by TMC leaders following the assembly elections in West Bengal. The court explicitly stated, “Police authorities are directed to take measures so that the petitioner will not be a victim of egg pelting or any other harassment when appearing before the jurisdiction magistrate or investigating agency for any notices.”
Legal Proceedings and Challenges
Banerjee’s legal team faced setbacks as the High Court dismissed his revision petition contesting the collection of his voice sample. Consequently, Banerjee withdrew the petition. Initially, a trial court had permitted the West Bengal Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to secure his voice sample, prompting Banerjee to seek intervention from the High Court.
The controversy stems from Banerjee’s alleged comments during election rallies, where he reportedly suggested that DJs would play music loudly enough to cause discomfort once election results were declared. A voter filed a complaint, denouncing the remarks as intimidating.
Interim Protection and Compliance
Previously, on May 21, the High Court had provided interim protection to Banerjee, restraining the police from taking coercive actions against him until July 31, contingent upon his cooperation with the investigation. During Friday’s hearing, the court reiterated that Banerjee’s protection from arrest was conditional on his compliance.
Justice Bhattacharyya clarified, “The decision taken by the authority in connection with the investigation for recording your voice sample or for taking your voice sample comes under the umbrella of my order… Irrespective of this order passed by jurisdictional authority, you are bound to cooperate with the investigation.”
Court’s Displeasure and Legal Strategy
The court voiced dissatisfaction over Banerjee filing a criminal revision petition with another bench while a related writ petition was pending. Justice Bhattacharyya expressed, “With pain, I am expressing my mind that I passed the order on 21st May 2026. What is troubling me is that after that, this sort of application will be filed before other courts, revealing the conduct of the petitioner.”
The court advised that modifications should be sought within the same jurisdiction rather than seeking contradictory orders from different courts. It criticized the revision petition as an attempt to hinder the investigation.
More Read
Following the court’s remarks, Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacherjee, representing Banerjee, withdrew the revision petition, acknowledging the legal misstep. “This is our wrong legal advice, not by the petitioner,” he admitted.
