Actress Sreelekha Mitra has approached the Calcutta High Court challenging multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered against her across West Bengal in connection with her alleged display of an objectionable political caricature depicting Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a protest rally on July 24.

Mitra has sought quashing of the FIRs and consequential notices issued to her by various police stations, contending that the criminal proceedings arise from a single incident and amount to an abuse of the criminal process.

The writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, states that Mitra had participated in a peaceful demonstration organised by students and civil society members protesting alleged irregularities in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) and demanding transparency in matters concerning public education.

According to the petition, the demonstration commenced from Sealdah and proceeded towards Dharmatala, with students, teachers, artists and members of the public participating.

Mitra claims that during the commotion accompanying the demonstration and subsequent police intervention, she was "momentarily handed a placard" containing a satirical political cartoon allegedly depicting the Prime Minister.

The actress has specifically denied having authored, designed, commissioned, printed, published or circulated the cartoon.

"Owing to the prevailing confusion, the petitioner, without going through the contents thereof, momentarily held the said placard," the petition states.

It further claims that a photograph of Mitra holding the placard was subsequently circulated widely on social media and that the entire criminal process initiated against her stems from the photograph.

Mitra has also relied upon her subsequent public clarification, in which she allegedly stated that she had participated in support of the students' movement and had no intention of insulting any constitutional authority or public functionary. She also expressed regret over the incident, according to the petition.

The petition alleges that soon after the photograph was circulated, a coordinated social media campaign commenced calling upon political workers to lodge criminal complaints against Mitra before different police stations across West Bengal.

It refers to several social media posts allegedly announcing the filing of complaints against her at different police stations.

One such post, according to the petition, announced that two complaints had been lodged by the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, Jadavpur Mandal-I, at Netaji Nagar and Jadavpur Police Stations.

Another publication allegedly claimed that more than 53 FIRs had already been lodged against Mitra and that their number would increase across the State.

The Chatterjeehat Police Station FIR, for instance, was registered as Case No. 197/2026 dated July 28 under Sections 352, 353(2) and 356(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

A complaint forming part of the petition alleges that Mitra, by using the poster in a Facebook post, had "instigated people towards violence against Constitutional authorities and elected government" and had also instigated personal violence against the Prime Minister.

'Multiple FIRs Arising From Same Occurrence Impermissible'

Mitra contends that the alleged occurrence is singular and that different police stations cannot initiate parallel criminal proceedings based on the same photograph and the same alleged act.

The petition argues that repeated notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), requiring her to appear before different investigating agencies, have made compliance practically impossible.

It states that Mitra has nevertheless cooperated with the investigations and, in several cases, sought copies of the complaints and FIRs before appearing.

The actress has also challenged the invocation of Sections 352 and 353(2) BNS, arguing that the allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences.

"There is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner committed any act of violence, assaulted or threatened any individual, obstructed any public servant in discharge of official duties, instigated commission of any offence, incited imminent violence, promoted public disorder or committed any overt act capable of attracting the penal provisions invoked," the petition states.

She has similarly questioned the subsequent addition of Section 356(3) BNS in some FIRs, contending that no additional factual allegation or subsequent development justified the different penal provisions being invoked in relation to the same incident.

Criminal Process Has Become 'Punishment'

The petition argues that the repeated criminal proceedings, notices and demands for personal appearance have effectively transformed the investigative process into punishment.

"The repeated institution of substantially identical criminal proceedings, the requirement of repeated appearances before different police stations located across the State... have rendered the petitioner's ordinary professional and personal life impossible to conduct with any degree of certainty," the petition states.

It further alleges that the proceedings have a "direct chilling effect" on the petitioner's right to participate in peaceful political expression and public discourse under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

Mitra has therefore sought quashing of all FIRs, complaints, General Diary entries and proceedings arising from the July 24 incident.

In the alternative, she has sought directions for all such proceedings to be consolidated and transferred to one designated investigating agency or police station, with other complaints being treated only as information forming part of a single investigation.

She has also sought cancellation of the notices issued under Sections 35(3) and 94 BNSS, an interim direction restraining coercive action against her, and a direction requiring the State to produce a complete consolidated list of all FIRs and complaints registered against her concerning the incident.

The petition asserts that the multiplicity of proceedings is arbitrary, oppressive and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.