Calcutta High Court Restrains Police Action Against TMC's Abhishek Banerjee Over 'Objectionable Remarks' On Amit Shah

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday (May 21) in an interim order directed the police not to take any coercive action against TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee till July 31, booked in an FIR for allegedly making objectionable remarks against Home Minister Amit Shah during a poll rally. 

After hearing the parties, Justice Saugata Bhattacharya while dictating the interim order said:

"Having considered submissions and taking note of nature of alleged offence, court finds custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required. Furthermore right of the petitioner is protected under Section 35(3) BNSS. At this stage the court directs the Police not to take any coercive steps against petitioner till July 31 or till further order whichever is earlier."

The court directed that petitioner has to cooperate with the investigating agency regarding the investigation and shall comply with the notices if issued to the petitioner. The notices shall be issued giving atleast 48 hours time to the petitioner, the court added. 

"In the event the petitioner does not cooperate with the investigating agency, the concerned state respondent will be at liberty to approach the court with appropriate application. Petitioner shall not go abroad without the leave of the court," the court said. 

The court said that the interim order will subsist till July 31 and thus listed the matter on July 20. 

A detailed copy of the order is awaited. 

According to petitioner's plea, the FIR was registered following a complaint alleging that Banerjee made defamatory and provocative statements against Shah while addressing a public meeting during an election campaign for the West Bengal assembly elections.

During the hearing senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee appearing for the TMC leader submitted, "This is against malicious prosecution, immediately after change of power. Petitioner is three time MP. And general secretary of TMC. He is leader of the party in the parliament".

As Banerjee pointed to the complaint, the court orally remarked, "You are submitting that he is general secreayrt of TMC and MP. Why these statements are made? Since you are before court, when General Secretary of TMC is before this court why these irresponsible statements were made? Just before the election? Had TMC been in winning side then what would have happened...?...considering the fact that there is a very black history so far as this state is concerned on deaths in post poll violence".

"Not only this it is a very meticulously written complaint. And this will be investigating upon...but why those statements. Because in newspaper also, media TV channels, eberywhere it was shown. Does it match with status of petitioner being General Secretary of all india party," the court orally said. 

To which Banerjee said, "It may not be. I agree. The question today is whetehr there was an effect of this speech happened or not". He submitted that there had been a delay in the filing of the complaint adding that delay of even one day is fatal. 

He said that criminal proceedings started on May 15 when complaint was received by police despite information receiving on May 5. He further submitted that if petitioner has committed an offence then immediately complaint should have been lodged, however here time was taken till May 15. 

The court further orally asked the State as why petitioner was required to be taken into custody for sake of interrogation. The State said that it had never said that the petitioner is to be taken into custody, and that they will follow the due procedure of law provided in BNSS. 

"Considering the nature of alleged offence it does not require petitioner is required to be taken into custody for custodial interrogation," the court orally said. 

The State's counsel referred to Imran Pratapgarhi judgment and said, "regarding provocative speech if a complaint is been lodged, it is the duty of the concerned police to do preliminary inquiry. In this...preliminary inquiry was conducted, and then only concerned officer has come to conclusion that this is cognizable offence and therefore FIR has been registered". The State's counsel said that petitioner is already protected under Section 35(3) BNSS. 

The court however orally said that the petitioner has to cooperate with the investigation but it will direct no coercive steps be taken without leave of the court. 

Meanwhile a senior advocate appearing for complainant said that petitioner was making concscious mistatement to mislead the court. However petitioner's counsel opposed this. 

To which the court orally said, "The Court will not decide whether post poll political violence took palce or not...Court is seeing whether custdiual interrogation is necessary of petitioner". 

Banerjee has reportedly been booked under BNS sections 196 (promotion of enmity, hatred), 351 (criminal intimidation), and 353(1)(c) ( circulation of false information, rumors to incite hatred), among others. Section 196 of the BNS is a non-bailable offence with imprisonment of three years and a fine.

He has also been booked under Section 123(2) and Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Case title: Abhishek Banerjee v/s State 

WPA 11489 of 2026