Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee challenging the reduction of his security cover from Z+ to X category after the change of government in West Bengal.

During the hearing, the Court questioned the State Government over its failure to conduct a fresh security review despite Banerjee's representations alleging multiple attacks on him and his family following the downgrade of his security.

Justice Krishna Rao asked the State why it was waiting for the next six-monthly security review when the petitioner had specifically brought subsequent incidents to the authorities' attention and sought enhancement of his security.

"The question is, you have received a request, these incidents have happened, is there any rule that you cannot hold the review committee before six months?" the Court asked the State.

The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, submitted that Banerjee had been receiving Z+ security since 2013 on the basis of threat perception. However, his security was downgraded to X category on May 12, shortly after the new government was sworn in on May 9.

He argued that the decision was taken without any discussion or meeting of the competent Security Review Committee, which alone was authorised to modify the security cover. According to him, the authorities had relied on a recommendation rather than a decision of the committee.

The counsel further submitted that six attacks had taken place against Banerjee and his family since the reduction of his security cover, but the authorities had failed to act on his subsequent representations seeking protection.

He alleged that police pickets outside Banerjee's residence and office had also been removed. Referring to the latest incident, he told the Court that a JCB machine had been brought at around 6:30 am on Thursday to demolish the police post outside Banerjee's residence.

"One day after change of government," the counsel submitted, alleging that the haste in reducing the security cover gave rise to a presumption of mala fides.

He added that Banerjee was apprehensive about a possible political assassination and was only seeking an emergency review of his security arrangements.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya, opposed the plea, submitting that security cover of a particular category could not be claimed as a matter of right.

The AAG submitted that the security reduction took place on May 12 and that a review had subsequently been conducted on May 29. He further stated that security assessments were ordinarily undertaken every six months and that the next review was scheduled for the end of November.

He also submitted that Z+ security was generally accorded to certain constitutional functionaries, including the Chief Minister and Governor, and that Banerjee had been assigned X-category security in the absence of a specific threat assessment from the Kolkata Police.

However, the Court questioned whether the May 29 review had taken into consideration the incidents allegedly occurring after the reduction of security.

"Where are your reports taking into consideration the incidents that happened after May?" the Court asked.

The Court further sought to know where the authorities had recorded a finding that there was no threat to the petitioner.

The AAG submitted that the relevant reports indicated the State's assessment, while also stating that several other MPs were receiving X-category security.

The Court, however, observed that once the petitioner had approached the authorities with specific complaints of subsequent incidents, the State ought to have reconsidered his security arrangements rather than waiting for the next scheduled review.

"Once you have reduced, then also reconsider," the Court observed, questioning why the authorities were waiting for six months despite receiving representations regarding subsequent incidents.

The Court also asked the State to take note of the incidents brought on record and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

State Seeks Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Over Banerjee's Interview

The hearing also witnessed a sharp exchange between the State and the petitioner's counsel over an interview given by Banerjee, which the AAG alleged amounted to criminal contempt of court.

At the outset, the AAG placed before the Court a transcript of an interview given by the petitioner and submitted that Banerjee had cast aspersions on the judiciary by naming a judge. He also produced a pen drive containing the video of the broadcast interview.

The AAG argued that the statements constituted an attack on an institution by an elected Member of Parliament and urged the Court to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against Banerjee.

"This case is covered under the Contempt of Courts Act. This cannot go on," the AAG submitted.

Opposing the submission, Senior Advocate Alam argued that the interview had no connection with the relief sought in the writ petition. He submitted that the statements were made in the context of the attacks on Banerjee's residence, when his wife and children were inside, and his repeated attempts to secure protection from the authorities.

Describing Banerjee's remarks as an expression of exasperation, the counsel submitted that the petitioner was seeking protection of his Article 21 rights and should not be denied relief because of the interview.

He further argued that the petitioner had been subjected to six attacks and that the State's failure to provide adequate protection reflected a breakdown of law and order.

The Court, however, questioned the petitioner over his remarks concerning the judiciary.

"You ask your client, who are the judges with the BJP and who aren't... since he is so intelligent, let him give a list. I will see," the Court remarked.

It also observed that Banerjee was an educated person and a sitting MP and could not be treated as an ordinary layperson.

"Your client is writing the ACR of the judges," the Court remarked.

The Court further observed that if the petitioner was aggrieved by an earlier order, he could have approached another bench, pointing out that vacation benches were also available.

However, the Court clarified that the interview should not derail the adjudication of the security-related grievance.

"Because of one publication, the writ petition should not be affected. I will take into account everything and pass orders," the Court observed.

The hearing concluded with the Court reserving its order on the plea.

Tags: