Senior Advocate and All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) leader Kalyan Bandopadhyay has written a letter to the Secretary of the Calcutta High Court Bar Association (CHCBA) raising objections over a call made by an officer of the West Bengal Criminal Investigation Department (CID), alleging improper interference in a matter where he is currently appearing as counsel before the Calcutta High Court.
According to Bandopadhyay, a CID officer contacted him over the phone and sought permission to interrogate him in connection with a criminal investigation arising out of the alleged forgery of signatures of Members of the Legislative Assembly on an AITC resolution concerning the appointment of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.
The AITC leader questioned the procedural propriety of such an approach, particularly when he was appearing as a Senior Counsel in related proceedings pending before the High Court.
The dispute originates from a resolution said to have been adopted by AITC MLAs following the State Assembly elections, recommending the appointment of a Leader of Opposition. Allegations subsequently emerged from certain legislators that their signatures on the resolution had been forged. Acting on a complaint, the Assembly Secretary lodged an FIR at Hare Street Police Station, which was later transferred to the CID for investigation.
Bandopadhyay is presently representing AITC leader Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay in a writ petition challenging the Speaker’s decision recognising rebel MLA Ritabrata Banerjee as LoP. The petition also speaks about the validity and procedural integrity of the resolution submitted to the Assembly authorities.
In his letter to the Bar Association, the senior counsel stated that shortly before writing the communication, a CID officer identified as Partha Bhattacharjee contacted him seeking to conduct an interrogation in connection with the ongoing criminal case. He characterised the development as incompatible with established legal norms governing advocate-client and advocate-officer interactions in matters sub judice.
Bandopadhyay pointed out that he had been actively arguing the matter before the High Court over multiple days and questioned the legality and appropriateness of subjecting a counsel to investigative questioning in relation to a matter in which he is professionally engaged. He further indicated that he has also appeared earlier in related proceedings arising out of a separate challenge to a notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Senior Advocate asserted that such actions amount to an infringement on the independence of the legal profession and sought protective measures from the Bar Association to ensure that advocates are not subjected to investigative pressure while discharging their duties before courts.
Bandopadhyay has maintained that he has no personal involvement in the alleged forgery of signatures, stating that the dispute concerns MLAs who were signatories to the resolution and that his role is confined strictly to legal representation before the High Court. He has also described the incident as an unwarranted encroachment on professional space and linked it to broader concerns regarding institutional respect for the Bar.
The development arises in the backdrop of ongoing political and legal disputes within the Trinamool Congress following the State Assembly elections, including competing claims over the position of Leader of Opposition and allegations of internal procedural irregularities in party resolutions that have now become the subject of judicial scrutiny and criminal investigation.
In his letter to CHCBA, Bandopadhyay sought institutional intervention to safeguard what he described as the dignity, professional privilege, and independence of advocates. He further sought appropriate steps to address what he termed as interference with the professional functioning and privileges of advocates engaged in active litigation.
The post West Bengal LoP row: Kalyan Bandopadhyay flags CID inquiry attempt in signature forgery probe appeared first on India Legal.