The Calcutta High Court today directed the West Bengal Police to deploy two police personnel with Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra whenever she enters her constituency for the next 30 days, observing that such protection was necessary to enable her to discharge her duties as an elected representative amid allegations of mob harassment.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya passed the direction while hearing a plea concerning alleged incidents of mob disturbance and harassment faced by Moitra during visits to her constituency.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for Moitra, told the Court that the MP was unable to discharge her parliamentary duties as she was allegedly being prevented from freely visiting her constituency.

“She is not able to discharge her duties because of this. It is happening every day. People are throwing stones and potatoes,” Bandopadhyay submitted.

The Court asked whether the grievance was that Moitra, in order to discharge her functions, had to visit her constituency but was unable to do so because of such incidents.

The senior counsel also referred to an incident concerning Moitra's stay at a Circuit House which had been allotted to her.

He submitted that the allotment was cancelled at around 10:30 pm, while a group of BJP workers was allegedly present outside and there was no police presence.

“Will we remain in such an unruly state of affairs? For so long as I am an MP I will discharge my duties,” Bandopadhyay submitted.

He also referred to a Facebook Live allegedly showing the incidents and said that details had been communicated to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station.

According to him, Moitra had also intimated the Director General of Police through WhatsApp while the incident was taking place, but the police response came only after around three hours.

“Where are we?” the senior counsel asked. Bandopadhyay further relied on an earlier order passed in a Public Interest Litigation concerning incidents of egg-pelting, submitting that the Court had recognised human dignity as a constitutional guarantee and held that the State had a responsibility to protect all persons.

He said directions had been issued to the DGP in that matter, but “on the very next day” a similar incident occurred.

The Court questioned the implications of the alleged incidents for political workers and elected representatives belonging to rival parties.

“If an MP is subjected to egg pelting and other harassment while she enters into her constituency, then what will happen to other political persons who show allegiance to rival parties?” the Court asked.

Bandopadhyay submitted that the earlier order had also emphasised that while “no one is above the law, no one can be considered to be below the law either.”

He stressed that protection was essential as otherwise Moitra would not be able to move freely in her constituency.

The senior counsel also referred to difficulties allegedly faced by him personally in entering the Court premises and said that he had even been compelled to sell his house in one such context. “It is a woman, a lady MP,” he submitted, describing the situation as “unbelievable.”

Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumdar appearing for the State submitted that the writ petition had been filed and that Moitra had lodged complaints regarding the incidents.

He said that steps had been taken and pointed out that the last incident referred to in the proceedings was on July 2.

The AAG, however, sought instructions on whether Moitra had subsequently visited the constituency and whether she had faced any further harassment.

The Court observed that an arrangement could be made whereby, for a limited period, police protection would be provided whenever Moitra entered her constituency.

The AAG submitted that Moitra was already protected as she was an MP.

The Court, however, questioned this submission in view of the alleged incidents. “If she is protected, then how did these incidents take place for which police had to register an FIR? Which prima facie goes to show that there are incidents affecting her security,” the Court observed.

The AAG submitted that whenever an unwanted incident had occurred, appropriate steps had been taken.

The Court said that appropriate protection ought to be provided to Moitra and proposed that such protection be extended for one month, after which the State could submit a further report.

The Court clarified that Moitra would intimate the police about the dates on which she intended to visit her constituency and the police would make the necessary deployment.

The Court subsequently clarified that although personal security officers were already available to Moitra, additional police personnel should be deployed so that “these obnoxious incidents” did not occur.

Bandopadhyay disputed the State's assertion that adequate protection was already being provided and urged the State to file an affidavit.

He also submitted that Moitra had recently gone to a police station in connection with a case, but around 1,000 people were allegedly present outside the police station.

The Court observed: “State must deal with [it] with iron hand or it will be out of your control.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court directed the State to deploy two police personnel with Moitra whenever she entered her constituency, specifically to prevent harassment and enable her to discharge her duties as an MP.

The protection, the Court clarified, would be for a limited period of 30 days.

“Two police personnel be deployed with the petitioner whenever she enters her constituency to avoid harassment,” the Court ordered.

The Court directed that the arrangement would remain in force for 30 days and directed the State to place a further report before it thereafter.

The matter has been directed to be listed on October 1.

Case: Mahua Moitra v State Of West Bengal