Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection
The Calcutta High Court has granted interim relief to Trinamool Congress (TMC) Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra in a hate speech case, shielding her from coercive police actions. Justice Saugata Bhattacharya issued this order in response to Moitra’s petition to quash the criminal proceedings linked to the allegations. She argued against the repeated police notices and sought protection from any coercive measures. The court has stipulated that no coercive action should be taken against her until October 5, or until further orders, provided she cooperates with the ongoing investigation.
Conditions of Cooperation
The court instructed Mahua Moitra to appear before the investigating officer on August 14, 2026, at 3 PM, following the completion of the monsoon session of Parliament on August 13. Justice Bhattacharya emphasized that no further notice would be necessary from the investigating agency for her appearance and that no coercive steps should be taken against her until October 5, or until further directives are issued by the court.
Protection from Hostile Acts
Additionally, Justice Bhattacharya directed the police to ensure Moitra’s safety against any hostile acts, such as egg-pelting during her appearance before the investigating authorities. This directive came after Moitra’s counsel, Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharya, highlighted that her controversial remarks, which led to the hate speech case, were provoked by such incidents.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed in June by a leader from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over comments made by Moitra in social media videos. These comments were allegedly made after BJP supporters gathered outside a court in Krishnanagar with eggs and tomatoes intended for Moitra. In one video, Moitra announced her intent to file police complaints against those involved, while in another, she allegedly suggested that individuals wanting to throw eggs should “wear a burqa” to stay hidden. The complainant claimed that these statements offended Hindu religious sentiments and incited communal disharmony, which led to the hate speech case registration.
Arguments in Court
During the hearing, Moitra’s counsel contended that no hate speech offence was committed, as the term ‘Hindu’ was not mentioned in her statements. He argued that the legal provisions cited against Moitra entail penalties of less than seven years imprisonment, thus justifying her protection from coercive actions. He also requested that Moitra be allowed to attend the police inquiry via video conferencing, as she was committed to the Parliament session in Delhi until August 13.
More Read
State’s Position
Opposing the plea, Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra argued that Moitra had ignored four police notices requiring her appearance. He insisted that her reasons for non-appearance were invalid and stressed the need for her physical cooperation with the investigation. However, the State agreed not to issue further notices if the court scheduled a post-session appearance date.
Future Proceedings
The High Court ordered Moitra’s appearance on August 14 and allowed the police to continue their investigation as per legal protocols. However, it restrained any coercive actions against her until October 5, subject to her compliance. The court granted the State liberty to approach the court if Moitra fails to cooperate, with the case set for further review on October 1.
