Calcutta High Court Questions Alleged Influence of Abhishek Banerjee
The Calcutta High Court, on Tuesday, raised significant questions regarding the supposed influence of Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee on ongoing police investigations. The bench was considering a plea by Banerjee, who alleged that several politically motivated First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed against him following the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) rise to power on May 4.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, during the proceedings, noted the shift in political power in West Bengal, with a different party now in control. He pondered whether Banerjee’s influence remained substantial enough to warrant further interim protection from arrest or custodial interrogation. The judge further referenced an instance where demolition activities commenced against a property serving as Banerjee’s MP office, only for the High Court to intervene during a weekend to halt the process.
Change in Political Landscape Affects Legal Proceedings
“The political scenario has changed. Therefore, custodial interrogation might not be necessary,” Justice Bhattacharya remarked. “If he is so influential, why was his office in Amtala being demolished? The interference by a coordinate bench to stall the demolition does not support the contention that the petitioner is highly influential,” he added.
Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra countered, clarifying that the property in question does not belong to Banerjee, nor to Leaps and Bounds, a company reportedly linked to him. Mitra argued that even if it did, the company managed to secure a hearing on a Sunday, leaving the State insufficient time to prepare.
Debate Over Interim Protection
Despite the Advocate General’s points, the judge highlighted the changed political climate. The court noted that authorities often initiate actions like the demolition late on Fridays, prompting weekend court sessions to address petitions. “Before the current political dispensation, would such actions (demolitions) have occurred? This showcases the changed situation,” the court observed.
More Read
Meanwhile, a complainant’s counsel maintained that Banerjee continues to wield significant power, citing recent public attacks. He urged the court not to extend interim protection, arguing it would deter evidence against Banerjee and potentially force the withdrawal of complaints.
Legal Representatives Weigh In
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju also opposed interim relief, emphasizing that if a FIR indicates a cognizable offense, it cannot be dismissed prematurely. “For interim relief, a prima facie case must be demonstrated. Banerjee should have sought anticipatory bail instead of quashing the FIRs,” he argued.
Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya echoed this sentiment, adding that ensuring Banerjee’s cooperation with the investigation might require further court interventions. “Without reviewing the case diary, an interim order protecting Banerjee might not be appropriate,” he noted.
More Read
Current Status and Next Steps
In response, the judge extended the existing interim order, preventing any coercive measures against Banerjee in relation to three FIRs. This protection is valid until August 31 or further court instructions. The court reserved its decision on whether to maintain this interim protection until a final ruling on Banerjee’s plea to quash the FIRs.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Banerjee, disclosed that the FIRs against him have now totaled 16. He requested the court to instruct the police to provide complete FIR details, including complaints. The court agreed, ordering that the relevant police authority supply all FIR copies and associated complaints before the next hearing on August 25.
