The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee challenging the West Bengal government’s decision to downgrade his security cover from Z+ to X category following the change of government in the State.
Justice Krishna Rao, while hearing the plea, questioned the State government for not initiating a fresh security assessment despite receiving representations from Banerjee alleging multiple attacks on him and his family after the reduction in his security cover.
The Court sought to know why the authorities were waiting for the next scheduled six-monthly security review when specific incidents had already been brought to their notice. It questioned whether there was any legal or procedural impediment to convening the Security Review Committee before the completion of the six-month period.
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Banerjee, submitted that the TMC leader had been provided Z+ security since 2013 in view of the threat perception. However, his protection was reduced to X category on May 12, shortly after the new government assumed office on May 9. He alleged that the decision was taken without a meeting or deliberation of the competent Security Review Committee, which alone was empowered to determine changes in the security arrangement.
Alam further informed the Court that Banerjee and his family had faced six alleged attacks since the downgrade, but the State had failed to respond adequately to subsequent representations seeking enhanced protection. He also alleged that police pickets deployed outside Banerjee’s residence and office had been withdrawn. Referring to the latest development, counsel told the Court that a JCB machine had arrived outside Banerjee’s residence at around 6:30 am on Thursday to demolish the police post situated there.
Arguing that the security downgrade was carried out with undue haste, the petitioner’s counsel alleged that the circumstances raised serious questions about the decision-making process. He submitted that Banerjee apprehended a possible political assassination and was seeking an urgent reassessment of his security in view of the incidents reported thereafter.
Opposing the petition, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya submitted that an individual could not claim a particular category of security protection as an enforceable right. He informed the Court that the State had conducted a review on May 29 and that security assessments were ordinarily undertaken at six-monthly intervals, with the next exercise scheduled for the end of November. According to the State, Banerjee had been assigned X-category protection in the absence of a specific threat assessment from Kolkata Police warranting a higher security arrangement.
The Court, however, questioned whether the May 29 assessment had adequately considered the incidents that allegedly occurred after the reduction in protection. It also sought to know where the authorities had recorded a finding that Banerjee faced no threat. Justice Rao observed that the State could not simply wait for the next routine review after receiving fresh representations detailing alleged security threats.
The Court emphasised that the authorities were required to reconsider the security arrangement in light of the subsequent developments and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
State Seeks Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Over Banerjee’s Interview
The proceedings also witnessed a separate exchange over an interview given by Banerjee, which the State alleged contained remarks casting aspersions on the judiciary.
Additional Advocate General Bhattacharya placed a transcript of the interview before the Court and submitted a pen drive containing its video recording. Alleging that the TMC MP had made objectionable statements about the judiciary, including references to a judge, the State urged the Court to consider initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against him under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Opposing the submission, Alam argued that the interview had no bearing on the substantive relief sought in the writ petition. He submitted that Banerjee’s remarks were made in the backdrop of alleged attacks on his residence, when his wife and children were present, and repeated representations to the authorities seeking adequate security.
Counsel maintained that the petitioner was exercising his right to seek protection of his life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and that his security-related grievance should not be prejudiced by statements made in an interview.
The Court also questioned Banerjee’s remarks concerning the judiciary, observing that a sitting Member of Parliament and an educated public representative was expected to exercise responsibility while making such statements. Justice Rao remarked that if Banerjee had grievances against any judicial order, he could have pursued appropriate legal remedies, including approaching another Bench.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the controversy surrounding the interview would not be allowed to derail adjudication of the principal security-related grievance. It indicated that the writ petition would be decided after considering the material placed before it.
The Court thereafter reserved its order on Banerjee’s challenge to the reduction of his security cover.
The post Calcutta High Court reserves order on Abhishek Banerjee’s plea challenging downgrade of Z+ security cover appeared first on India Legal.