Calcutta High Court Dismisses Request for International Medical Travel
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a plea submitted by Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Abhishek Banerjee, seeking permission to travel abroad for eye treatment. The decision was delivered by Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, who initially suggested that a medical board at SSKM Hospital should assess Banerjee’s eye condition to determine if the treatment could be adequately administered within India.
Justice Bhattacharya emphasized that Banerjee’s preference for treatment overseas must be balanced with the ongoing criminal investigations against him. The Court expressed reluctance to permit Banerjee’s international travel without first confirming through a local medical assessment that such travel was indeed necessary. Banerjee, however, declined to undergo the proposed medical assessment in India, leading to the dismissal of his application.
“Given the applicant’s refusal (on instruction from his counsel) to appear before the medical board as suggested by this Court, this application is hereby dismissed,” declared Justice Bhattacharya.
Backdrop of Legal Challenges
Banerjee’s request for permission to travel abroad comes amidst several FIRs filed against him following the BJP’s victory in the West Bengal Assembly elections. These include accusations related to provocative remarks made during campaign events. Although Banerjee has sought to quash these cases, he has been granted interim protection in several instances. As part of these legal proceedings, the High Court mandated that Banerjee remain in the country unless authorized otherwise.
Last month, Banerjee sought the High Court’s permission to travel for his eye treatment abroad. However, the court ruled that such permission could only be considered if the SSKM Hospital confirmed that the necessary treatment was not available in Kolkata. Banerjee subsequently approached the Supreme Court, which directed the High Court to resolve the matter promptly.
More Read
Arguments and Observations
During the recent hearing, Senior Advocate Rebecca John, representing Banerjee, argued that he was only seeking temporary permission to travel for medical reasons. She highlighted that as an MP with a diplomatic passport, Banerjee’s movements are closely monitored, and he has previously traveled abroad and returned to India without issues.
John suggested that the court could impose strict conditions on Banerjee’s travel and emphasized the importance of continuity in medical care, noting that Banerjee has been receiving treatment at Johns Hopkins Hospital abroad. She presented a report from the institution detailing previous treatments administered to Banerjee. John also mentioned past complications from treatment received in India as a justification for seeking care abroad.
Despite these arguments, the Court questioned whether the treatment could not be effectively provided in India. Justice Bhattacharya noted, “If this treatment can be administered in India, there is no need to go abroad. I will direct the Department of Ophthalmology in SSKM to form a three-member committee to evaluate Banerjee and report on his condition.”
More Read
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumder, opposed the plea, stating there was no medical emergency necessitating Banerjee’s travel abroad. He further argued that Banerjee’s presence might be required for ongoing investigations related to several FIRs.
Ultimately, the Court remained unconvinced of the necessity for Banerjee’s foreign travel without a prior assessment of his condition within India, leading to the dismissal of his plea.
