The Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim protection from coercive action to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee in a case alleging forgery of signatures of newly-elected TMC MLAs in a resolution relating to the appointment of the Leader of Opposition after the Assembly elections.

Justice Kausik Chanda directed Banerjee to appear before the investigating agency at 6 PM on Thursday (today) and cooperate with the investigation being carried out by the West Bengal CID, while restraining the State from taking coercive steps against him for a period of three weeks.

Significantly, the Court observed that an accused person cannot be compelled to produce documents that may incriminate him, remarking that such a course would offend the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20.

The case concerns allegations that signatures of several TMC MLAs were forged on a resolution purportedly recording their unanimous decision regarding the election of the Leader of Opposition. The CID had earlier conducted searches at the party office situated at the residence of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Appearing for Banerjee, counsel submitted that the allegations were confined to offences of forgery and cheating and argued that his client was not an MLA at the relevant time but was functioning as the General Secretary of the party.

It was argued that after the election results, a unanimous decision had been taken by the MLAs and, in his capacity as party General Secretary, Banerjee merely communicated the decision to the Speaker.

When the Court asked why Banerjee had written to the Speaker, counsel responded that he had done so solely as General Secretary of the party.

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar, opposed the plea and contended that the investigation had revealed serious discrepancies. According to the State, Banerjee initially informed the Speaker regarding the choice of Leader of Opposition without enclosing any minutes of the meeting. After the Speaker sought supporting documents, a resolution and attendance sheet bearing signatures of MLAs were subsequently furnished.

The State alleged that the signatures annexed to the resolution were claimed to relate to a meeting held on May 6, whereas several MLAs had stated that no such meeting took place on that date and that they had never signed the document. It was further argued that at least five MLAs had disputed the authenticity of the signatures and that comparisons with nomination papers revealed significant differences.

The State also submitted that Banerjee had failed to produce the original resolution despite repeated notices and argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the document.

However, the Court repeatedly questioned how custody would assist in recovering the document and observed that the investigating agency possessed statutory powers of search and seizure to secure evidence.

At one stage, the Court remarked: "You cannot interrogate him to get a document. You cannot compel an accused to give a statement against himself like this."

The Court further observed that if the investigating agency wanted to recover the document, it must resort to lawful investigative measures such as search and seizure rather than compel the accused to produce it.

Rejecting the State's contention that protection should not be granted, the Justice Kausik Chanda stated: "Show me one provision that the investigative agency can compel an accused to produce a document. Nothing. You have to search and seize."

While acknowledging that the allegations concerning the sanctity of the Legislative Assembly were serious and warranted investigation, the Court held that Banerjee's willingness to appear before investigators and cooperate with the probe justified interim protection.

Dictating its order, the Court recorded that Banerjee had volunteered to participate in the investigation and held that the investigating agency was free to interrogate him and take all lawful steps available under law for recovery of documents and collection of evidence.

Accordingly, the Court directed Banerjee to appear before the investigating agency at 6 PM on Thursday and thereafter as and when required upon 24 hours' notice. The Court granted protection from coercive action for three weeks and directed that the matter be listed again after two weeks.

Before concluding the hearing, the Court reiterated that an accused cannot be compelled to assist the prosecution by producing potentially incriminating material, observing that the Constitution protects an individual's right against self-incrimination and that the investigating agency must secure evidence through procedures recognised by law.

Case No : CRR/2240/2026

Case : ABHISHEK BANERJEE VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL