The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the Nadia District Magistrate's letter requiring Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and other legislators from Nadia district to give three to four days' prior notice for Circuit House accommodation “seems retaliatory".

The Court modified the DM's direction by stating that she only needs to inform the district administration a day before her visit.

The Court stated that Moitra's request for accommodation must be processed as per protocol, overruling the State's objection that it can be only as per availability.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing Moitra's petition concerning her alleged late-night eviction from the Krishnanagar Circuit House in August 2026 and related issues, including alleged lack of cooperation by the district administration in implementing MPLADS projects in her constituency.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, submitted that the Circuit House was undergoing maintenance for installation of a water iron-removal plant at the relevant time, a fact he said Moitra herself had acknowledged. He stated that no room had been allotted to any person except two rooms occupied by officers as transit accommodation, that Moitra was courteously escorted to a room, and that the Additional District Magistrate had telephoned her about shifting to another government guest house. Mehta emphatically denied that any officer physically approached her to demand vacation of the premises and said all available courtesies were extended.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, contended that the September 1, 2026 letter requiring three to four days' prior notice was targeted at her. He pointed out that for the last ten years, as an MLA and then MP, she had routinely secured accommodation with just three to four hours' notice, consistent with practice for other MPs and MLAs. He highlighted that on the night in question, other rooms were occupied by government officials including a project director, the Nazarat Deputy Collector, an IAS probationer and another official, none of whom were asked to vacate, while a call was made only to her. He highlighted that in the State's reply, there is absolute silence regarding the petitioner's arguments that other officers were not asked to vacate. He stated that as per protocol, the MP ranks higher than even the Chief Secretary.

Justice Bagchi interjected that the Court did not wish to enter into a debate because the first paragraph of the letter itself showed it was retaliatory. But the SG said that it was not addressed to one MP, and was to all legislators from the district. "It was not for 1 MP, but for the district. Let me dispel the notion that it was for 1 MP," SG said.

"We would like you to withdraw this. She is the member from that district... First para shows it's a retaliatory letter. 'recent incidents relating to...'" Justice Bagchi said.

Solicitor General Mehta offered to withdraw the letter without the Court having to injunct it and put in place a general standard operating procedure (SOP) applicable to all.

The Chief Justice observed that such disputes should not ordinarily reach the Supreme Court and that only a small SOP was required. He suggested that sudden visits by an MP or other person could create embarrassment, but one week or ten days' prior notice was unnecessary; eight hours or a day before would suffice, with a nodal officer for coordination.

Sankaranarayanan agreed that one day prior notice would be given, and the allotment should be as per protocol. However, the SG insisted that the allotment should be as per availability, saying that a room cannot be reserved for any functionary.

In the order, the bench, modified the September 1, 2026 circular (addressed to MPs and MLAs of Nadia district requiring at least three to four days' prior notice for Circuit House arrangements), stating that Moitra will inform the district administration a day before her visit, whereupon necessary accommodation at the Circuit House, as per protocol, may be provided.

Though the SG urged that allotment should be as per availability, the bench declined to modify the order. "She will have preferential right to stay, not because she is an MP but because she's representative of that constituency," CJI said.

On the second issue of alleged lack of cooperation in MPLADS implementation, with Moitra's counsel submitting that 18 projects were stuck since May 2026, the Court requested the district administration to look into the matter and take appropriate steps. It noted that if she remained aggrieved, she could approach the jurisdictional High Court, and declined to treat the matter as an occasion to decide broader MPLADS issues under Article 32.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Advocate Harshit Anand and AoR Yashwant Singh (for Moitra)