In a significant judicial directive, the Calcutta High Court has mandated security measures to protect Trinamool Congress (TMC) Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra from repeated egg-pelting attacks. The order, issued on Tuesday, stipulates the deployment of two police officers to accompany Moitra during her visits to her constituency, Krishnanagar, to prevent any such harassment.
Security Measures for Mahua Moitra
Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, presiding over the case, instructed Moitra to notify the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Krishnanagar 48 hours before her visit to ensure the provision of this protection. The arrangement is set to persist for a period of 30 days. The directive reads, “The Superintendent of Police, Krishnanagar Police District, is directed to provide protection to the petitioner by deputing two police personnel whenever the petitioner enters her constituency to avoid egg pelting and other forms of harassment as alleged in this writ petition. However, such protection shall be provided to the petitioner for a period of 30 days from today.” The court scheduled a follow-up session on October 1, requiring a report from the SP on the measures implemented.
Judicial Concerns Over Egg-Pelting
The High Court also urged the West Bengal government to address the issue of egg-pelting with stringent measures to prevent it from escalating. Justice Bhattacharya remarked, “Deal with this menace with an iron hand, otherwise it will be beyond your control.” The interim order was passed following a petition filed by Moitra, highlighting her concerns about the targeted attacks by BJP workers in West Bengal.
Moitra’s Challenges and Legal Representation
Moitra has voiced her difficulties in carrying out her duties as an MP due to these attacks. Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing Moitra, articulated that the MP had faced obstacles in visiting her constituency and attending court hearings due to the threat of these incidents. Banerjee noted, “Days in and days out, if it is going on, how can a member of parliament discharge her duties?” He emphasized the adverse impact on Moitra’s professional obligations and personal safety.
State’s Response and Court’s Decision
The State’s Additional Advocate General (AAG), Rajdeep Mazumdar, informed the court of existing protocols to handle such incidents and mentioned the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) on July 3. However, based on the persisting threats, the Court decided to enforce additional protective measures for Moitra. Justice Bhattacharya questioned the effectiveness of the existing security, stating, “Then how do these incidents take place? Police authority had to register an FIR, which prima facie indicates that there are certain incidents affecting the safety and security of the petitioner.”
Implications of the Court Order
The court clarified that this order would not interfere with any ongoing investigations related to a separate hate speech case against Moitra. The directive aims to ensure her safety while allowing the investigation to proceed without hindrance.
