The Calcutta High Court has criticised Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee over his alleged remarks questioning the political affiliations of judges, observing that he was effectively “writing the ACR of the judges”.

The observations came during the hearing of Banerjee's petition challenging the West Bengal government's decision to downgrade his security cover from Z+ to X category.

The controversy arose after the State's counsel, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya, referred to an interview given by Banerjee and placed its transcript and a pen drive before the Court. The State argued that the statements amounted to criminal contempt and sought initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings.

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Banerjee, opposed the submission, arguing that the interview was unrelated to the issue before the Court. He defended the petitioner's remarks in the context of his concerns over personal security and the alleged attacks against him.

The Court remarked that if Banerjee had objections to any judicial order, he could have approached another Bench instead of making remarks about judges' political affiliations.

The exchange took place after the State alleged that Banerjee had made remarks questioning the impartiality of the judiciary and suggesting that certain judges were favouring the BJP.

The Court observed that Banerjee, being an educated person and a sitting Member of Parliament, was expected to exercise greater responsibility while making public statements about the judiciary.

However, it clarified that the controversy surrounding the interview would not prejudice the adjudication of his 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.

Background

Banerjee had approached the High Court challenging the West Bengal government's decision to downgrade his security cover from Z+ to X category on May 12, shortly after the change of government in the State.

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Banerjee, submitted that the TMC leader had been receiving Z+ security since 2013 based on threat perception. He alleged that the downgrade was effected without a proper decision by the competent Security Review Committee.

The petitioner's counsel further submitted that Banerjee and his family had faced six attacks since the reduction of security cover and that representations seeking enhanced protection had not received adequate consideration.

The State opposed the plea, arguing that security cover could not be claimed as a matter of right. The AAG submitted that a review had been conducted on May 29 and that the next scheduled review was due at the end of November.

Justice Krishna Rao questioned why the State was waiting for the next six-monthly review despite receiving representations about subsequent incidents.

The Court eventually reserved its order on the petition