Calcutta High Court Questions Abhishek Banerjee's Remarks on Judiciary

PTI, Nov 12, 2026, Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Thursday took exception to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee's remarks allegedly casting aspersions on a section of the judiciary, observing that an elected representative and an educated person could not be treated like an ordinary layperson.

A bench of Justice Krishna Rao, however, made it clear that the remarks would not influence its decision on Banerjee's plea challenging the downgrading of his security cover from Z+ to X category.

The observations came during the hearing of the Trinamool leader's writ petition, when the West Bengal government alleged that the remarks he made in a "televised interview" amounted to criminal contempt of court, urging the bench to initiate suo motu proceedings.

Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya, appearing for the state, submitted a transcript of the interview and a pen drive containing its video recording. He alleged that Banerjee had cast aspersions on the judiciary by naming a judge, arguing that the remarks amounted to an attack on a constitutional institution by a sitting MP.

"This case is covered under the Contempt of Courts Act. This cannot be allowed to continue," the AAG submitted.

Opposing the state's contention, senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Banerjee, argued that the remarks had no bearing on the relief sought in the writ petition.

He submitted that the remarks were made in the context of alleged attacks on Banerjee's residence when his wife and children were present, and his repeated attempts to seek protection from the authorities.

Describing the comments as an "expression of exasperation", Alam argued that Banerjee was seeking protection of his fundamental right to life under Article 21 and should not be denied relief on account of the interview.

The counsel also submitted that Banerjee had faced six attacks and that the state's failure to provide adequate security reflected a breakdown of law and order.

Justice Rao, however, questioned the MP's remarks on the judiciary.

"You ask your client, who are the judges with the BJP and who aren't... since he is so intelligent, let him give a list. I will see," Justice Rao remarked.

The bench observed that Banerjee, being an educated person and a sitting MP, could not be treated as an ordinary layperson.

"Your client is writing the ACR (Annual Confidential Report) of the judges," Justice Rao said.

The court observed that if Banerjee was aggrieved by an earlier order, he could have approached another bench, noting that vacation benches were available to hear such grievances.

At the same time, the court said the controversy over the remarks would not be allowed to derail the adjudication of his security-related plea.

"Because of one publication, the writ petition should not be affected. I will take into consideration everything and pass orders," Justice Rao observed.

Banerjee's counsel argued that the threat perception assessed by the state government did not reflect the situation on the ground.

"There is no denial of the fact that my client is under threat. I am only seeking an emergency review of his security and that his security cover be increased in the meanwhile," he said.

"I am grateful for the dispassionate hearing regardless of what has happened. I will counsel my client," he added.

The hearing concluded with the court reserving its order on the plea.

Following an alleged attack on his residence in Kalighat in south Kolkata on November 7, a visibly agitated Banerjee had accused a section of the judiciary, among others, of turning a blind eye to threats to his security.

"This is not the first attack orchestrated on me. It began on June 19 when I visited Sonarpur and continued till the day I returned from Delhi. A man who was visible in photographs with Suvendu Adhikari tried to kill me at the airport with a gun. I filed a police complaint, but no action was taken against the accused," Banerjee had alleged.