Calcutta High Court Asks State Not To Take Coercive Steps Against Abhishek Banerjee In Plea To Quash Multiple FIRs

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the investigating authorities not to take any coercive steps against Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee till the next date of hearing in his petition seeking quashing of multiple FIRs registered against him, while directing the police to furnish a complete list of all FIRs pending against the petitioner.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya heard the matter.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for Banerjee, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju and Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya represented the respondents.

Posting the matter for further hearing on August 6, the Bench ordered: "Since hearing is not concluded the authorities are directed not to take steps against the petitioner."

It further directed: "Police authorities will provide a list of FIRs against the petitioner as on date."

The interim protection came after an elaborate hearing on the maintainability of Banerjee's plea, during which the Union and the State objected to the maintainability of a single writ petition seeking relief against multiple FIRs.

At the outset, ASG S.V. Raju submitted that the petition sought an "omnibus relief" which could not be granted.

"I have a preliminary objection on maintainability. They have sought omnibus relief. That cannot be granted."

When the Court suggested restricting the petition to the FIRs whose particulars had been disclosed, the ASG responded: "Then they need to file three petitions."

The Bench observed that details of some FIRs had not even been furnished to the petitioner and remarked that the matter could be confined to those FIRs for which particulars were available. It also noted that without an appropriate substantive prayer, interim relief could not ordinarily be granted.

Responding to the maintainability objection, Sankaranarayanan relied upon the Division Bench orders passed in favour of BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari after the 2021 Assembly elections, where multiple FIRs had been considered together.

He submitted: "In 2021, after the election results, when the TMC came to power, a series of FIRs were registered against Suvendu Adhikari. Each petition filed by them had a list of FIRs. In each of those cases, this Court granted them relief."

He argued that the Court had previously considered the timeline and pattern of FIRs registered against political opponents and had granted interim protection at the motion stage.

The Bench observed that there were indeed several orders where petitions challenging multiple FIRs had been entertained together, though it also noted that the maintainability objection had not been specifically argued in those proceedings.

Sankaranarayanan further contended that Banerjee was being subjected to a similar pattern of litigation after the recent election results.

"There are 11 complaints in all. Further FIRs were registered even after we filed this petition. After 4th May, when the results were declared, a host of complaints were filed."

Referring to one of the FIRs based on Banerjee's social media post, he argued: "He made a tweet saying 'Bangla birodhi Gujarati gang'. Not all Gujaratis, only Bangla birodhi... Ordinary political speech and the use of the word 'gang' cannot be criminalised."

He also submitted that seven FIRs had been initiated by a political rival who had twice lost elections against Banerjee.

The senior counsel went on to highlight what he described as a series of delayed and politically motivated complaints.

He referred to the FIR concerning Banerjee's alleged "DJ speech", pointing out that although the incident allegedly took place in April 2026, the FIR was registered only after the election results.

He similarly referred to complaints relating to alleged illegal mining since 2017, alleged irregularities concerning cyclone relief funds dating back to 2020, and another complaint concerning a private initiative from 2023, arguing that none of them explained the extraordinary delay in registration.

According to Sankaranarayanan: "They are burdening an already burdened police system. They are trying to fish and probe to see whether there is any offence at all."

He urged the Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent abuse of process, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and the earlier orders passed in Suvendu Adhikari's cases.

"The Court can step in if there are signs of malicious prosecution." He also sought protection against any future FIRs arising out of the same alleged pattern.

The Bench, however, declined to entertain such a prayer. The Court further observed that if additional FIRs were sought to be included, appropriate supplementary pleadings would have to be filed and the concerned complainants might also have to be impleaded.

Opposing the plea, SG Tushar Mehta argued that the petitioner was effectively seeking an advance judicial order restraining future criminal proceedings.

"They want an advance ruling that the Court may examine, prevent the police from registering FIR."

He further submitted that merely because complaints were filed by political opponents did not constitute a ground for quashing criminal proceedings and emphasised that mala fides had no place in criminal investigations.

He also argued that the Court should not grant a "no coercive steps" order akin to anticipatory bail in proceedings seeking quashing of FIRs.

During the exchange, the Bench repeatedly questioned the necessity of custodial action at this stage.

It observed: "These complaints don't pin point the petitioner. It's at best conjecture. This Court will not restrain the investigation but where is the necessity to take the petitioner into custody."

The Court also remarked: "Against an ordinary person so many FIRs are not registered."

Noting that interim protection had already been granted to Banerjee in other proceedings while permitting investigation to continue, the Bench observed: "We don't find that these are any different type of complaints. Or that they require custodial interrogation."

The Court clarified that it was not quashing any FIR at this stage but considered it appropriate to protect the petitioner while the maintainability issues remained under consideration.

Towards the close of the hearing, the Bench observed: "Then don't take any action, otherwise this exercise will be infructuous."

Accordingly, it directed that no coercive steps be taken against Banerjee until the next date of hearing, directed the police authorities to furnish a list of all FIRs registered against him, and listed the matter for further hearing on August 6.