Calcutta High Court Ruling in Favor of Abhishek Banerjee
On Tuesday, the Calcutta High Court issued an order preventing any coercive measures against Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee in relation to three specific First Information Reports (FIRs). These FIRs were filed shortly after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) assumed power on May 4. The case, Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal & Others, was presided over by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya.
Banerjee, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued that the FIRs were politically driven. Justice Bhattacharyya agreed, stating, “Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.” The Court directed police authorities not to take any coercive steps against Banerjee until November 30, 2026, or until further orders. However, Banerjee is required to cooperate with the investigation and respond to any notices issued, with at least 48 hours’ notice provided.
The Court also clarified that Banerjee could travel abroad for medical treatment, a provision previously granted by the Supreme Court on August 10. Although Banerjee sought relief across 16 FIRs, the Court chose to focus on three specific cases: Bhawanipur police station case no. 121 dated May 27, Kalitala Ashuti police station case no. 140 dated June 16, and Vishnupur police station case no. 668 of 2026.
Legal Arguments and Reactions
Justice Bhattacharyya’s order permits multiple FIRs to be addressed in a single petition, countering the State’s argument that separate petitions were necessary. “Relegating the petitioner to file different writ petitions questioning separate FIRs would only lead to multiplicity of litigation,” the order stated.
Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya requested a stay on the order, which was denied by the Court. During earlier proceedings, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju opposed Banerjee’s plea, arguing that if a FIR outlines a cognizable offense, it should not be quashed prematurely. He stated, “If a FIR discloses a cognisable offence, it cannot be quashed at the threshold.”
Despite arguments from the State, the Court’s decision remains firm. The counsel representing one complainant in the FIRs contended that Banerjee still wields significant influence, a claim the Court found unconvincing.
Next Steps and Investigation
The High Court has instructed police authorities to produce a report detailing the investigation’s progress in the three FIRs. The case will be revisited on November 23 for further proceedings. This ongoing legal battle underscores the complexities surrounding the TMC leader’s position and the politically charged environment in West Bengal following recent elections.
