The Calcutta High Court on Thursday took strong exception to remarks made by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee allegedly suggesting that a section of the judiciary was acting under the influence of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Justice Krishna Rao, while hearing Banerjee’s petition challenging the West Bengal government’s decision to downgrade his security cover from Z+ to X category, questioned the TMC leader’s allegations about the political affiliations of judges.
Responding to submissions made by the State, the Court asked Banerjee’s counsel to seek a list from his client identifying the judges whom he believed were aligned with the BJP and those associated with the TMC.
“Ask your client for a list of judges with the BJP and TMC party… Your client is writing an ACR (Annual Confidential Report) of the judges!” Justice Rao remarked.
The controversy surfaced after Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharyya, appearing for the State, brought to the Court’s attention certain statements allegedly made by Banerjee during a media interaction. The State’s counsel placed a video recording and transcript of the interview before the Court, contending that the TMC leader had made serious allegations against the judiciary and questioned the impartiality of judges.
The AAG argued that Banerjee’s statements amounted to criminal contempt of court, alleging that they cast aspersions on the judiciary as a constitutional institution.
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Banerjee, opposed the State’s submissions, maintaining that the statements had no bearing on the relief sought in the pending petition. He submitted that the remarks were an expression of frustration arising from the alleged threats to Banerjee and his family and the difficulties faced in securing adequate protection.
The Court, however, observed that if Banerjee was dissatisfied with the manner in which his plea was being heard, he could have approached an alternative judicial forum, including the Supreme Court or another Bench of the High Court.
The petition arises from the West Bengal government’s decision on May 12 to downgrade Banerjee’s security cover from Z+ to X category, following the change in government in the State. Banerjee had been receiving Z+ security since 2013.
His counsel submitted that the reduction was effected without a proper assessment of the threat perception and alleged that Banerjee and his family had faced multiple attacks. He sought an urgent review of the security arrangement and restoration of enhanced protection pending such consideration.
The State, on the other hand, maintained that security arrangements were subject to periodic review and could not be claimed as an absolute entitlement.
Clarifying that the controversy surrounding Banerjee’s public statements would not influence the adjudication of his security petition, Justice Rao observed that the Court would independently consider the issues raised before it.
The High Court subsequently reserved its order on Banerjee’s plea.
The post Name the judges who are with BJP: Calcutta High Court questions Abhishek Banerjee over remarks against Judiciary appeared first on India Legal.