The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday granted interim protection from coercive action to Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in connection with a criminal case, while directing her to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer on August 14.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya observed that the offences alleged against the petitioner were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and held that she was entitled to the protection available under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), subject to her cooperation with the investigation.

The Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against Moitra till October 5, or until further orders, provided she complies with the investigation. The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 1.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharya, appearing for Moitra, submitted that none of the allegedly offending statements used the terms "Hindu" or "Muslim" and argued that all the offences invoked were punishable with imprisonment below seven years.

The petitioner's counsel further contended that the criminal case had been initiated as a "counterblast" after her own complaint regarding an alleged egg-pelting incident was not registered by the police.

"My complaint against the egg pelters was never registered but this happened as a counterblast," counsel argued.

Seeking protection, counsel submitted that repeated notices had been issued to the petitioner despite her grievances remaining unaddressed and requested that she be permitted to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing.

Opposing the plea, the Advocate General submitted that Moitra had failed to comply with the first notice issued by the investigating agency and had claimed that it had been served at an incorrect address.

The Advocate General told the Court that the address where the notice had been served belonged to the petitioner and argued that while the State had no objection to protection from coercive action, she could not refuse to cooperate with the investigation.

"I can understand the prayer for no coercive steps but let her cooperate. She cannot say that she will not cooperate and will evade notice," the Advocate General submitted.

Questioning the petitioner, the Court asked, "Why are you not cooperating?"

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that several notices had already been issued to the petitioner but she had not complied with them. It nevertheless held that since all the alleged offences carried punishment below seven years, she was entitled to statutory protection under Section 35(3) BNSS.

Dictating the order, the Court noted that the petitioner was attending the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament and directed that notices requiring her appearance should be issued only after August 13, 2026.

The Court ordered Moitra to appear before the investigating officer on August 14 at 3 p.m., clarifying that no further notice would be issued for her appearance. It also permitted the investigating agency to continue with the investigation.

Importantly, the Court directed the police to ensure that when the petitioner appears before the investigating agency, "she shall not be subjected to egg pelting or any other form of harassment."

Accordingly, the Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till October 5, 2026, or until further orders, subject to her compliance with the investigation.

Case: MAHUA MOITRA VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

Case No: WPA/15399/2026