The Calcutta High Court on Thursday took exception to TMC 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.
However, a bench of Justice Krishna Rao clarified that the controversy surrounding the remarks would not influence its decision on Banerjee's plea seeking a review of his security cover, which was downgraded from Z+ to X category. The court reserved its order on the petition.
The observations came during the hearing of Banerjee's writ petition, when the West Bengal government accused him of making remarks amounting to criminal contempt of court in a televised interview. The state urged the court to initiate suo motu contempt 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 named a judge and cast aspersions on the judiciary, amounting 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 were unrelated to the relief sought in the petition and were an expression of exasperation over repeated attacks on the TMC leader and the alleged failure of authorities to provide adequate protection.
Alam submitted that Banerjee was seeking protection of his fundamental right to life under Article 21 and that the remarks should not prejudice his plea. He also claimed that the MP had faced six attacks and that the state's security assessment did not reflect the threat perception on the ground.
Questioning Banerjee's comments, Justice Rao said an elected representative could not make such remarks and then be treated as an ordinary person.
"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," the judge remarked.
"Your client is writing the ACR (Annual Confidential Report) of the judges," he added.
The bench also observed that if Banerjee was aggrieved by an earlier judicial order, he could have approached another bench, including a vacation bench, to seek relief.
However, Justice Rao made it clear that the remarks would not derail the hearing of the security-related petition.
"Because of one publication, the writ petition should not be affected. I will take into account everything and pass orders," he observed.
Seeking an interim enhancement of the security cover, Alam said there was no dispute that his client faced threats and requested an emergency review of the state government's assessment.
"I am grateful for the dispassionate hearing regardless of what has happened. I will counsel my client," the senior advocate said. The hearing concluded with the court reserving its order.
The proceedings followed an alleged attack on Banerjee's residence in Kalighat, south Kolkata, on November 7. Following the incident, a visibly agitated TMC leader had accused a section of the judiciary, among others, of turning a blind eye to threats against him.
Banerjee had alleged that the attacks on him began on June 19, when he visited Sonarpur, and continued after his return from Delhi. He also claimed that a man seen in photographs with BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari had attempted to kill him at the airport with a gun, but no action was taken despite his police complaint.
Questioning the delay in hearing his security plea, Banerjee had alleged that the matter was not taken up despite being listed before Justice Rao and subsequently before a vacation bench.
He had accused the High Court of maintaining an "awkward silence" over the threats to his security, arguing that if an MP could face such attacks, the safety of ordinary citizens was also at stake.
(With inputs from PTI)
