Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Thursday expressed anguish over reported derogatory remarks made by Trinamool Congress (TMC) national general secretary and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee against a section of the judiciary, saying that an elected public representative was expected to exercise responsibility while making such statements.
The observations were made by Justice Krishna Rao during a hearing on Banerjee’s petition seeking restoration of his Z-Plus security cover, which was downgraded after the BJP government came to power in West Bengal.
During the proceedings, the state government referred to an interview given by Banerjee and alleged that he had made objectionable comments about the judiciary, including remarks suggesting that a section of the judiciary was biased.
The state’s Additional Advocate General placed a transcript of the interview before the court and submitted a pen drive containing its video recording. He also urged the court to consider initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against the TMC leader.
Reacting to the remarks, Justice Rao said, “Ask your client (Abhishek Banerjee) which judges are with the BJP and which are not! He thinks he is very intelligent. Ask him to give a list; I will look into it.”
The judge also indicated that if Banerjee had any grievance against a judicial order, he could pursue the appropriate legal remedies instead of making such comments publicly.
Banerjee’s Counsel Opposes State’s Submission
Opposing the state’s submission, senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Banerjee, argued that the interview had no direct bearing on the security-related petition. He said the remarks were made in the backdrop of alleged attacks on Banerjee’s residence, when his wife and children were present, and repeated requests to the authorities for adequate protection.
Alam maintained that Banerjee had approached the court seeking protection of his life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and that his security-related grievance should not be affected by the controversy over the interview.
The court, however, made it clear that the issue surrounding the remarks would not be allowed to derail the hearing on Banerjee’s main petition.
Plea For Restoration Of Z-Plus Security
Banerjee had approached the High Court after his Z-Plus security cover was reduced to X-category protection following the change of government in West Bengal. His counsel told the court that he had been receiving Z-Plus security since 2013 and alleged that he and his family had faced six attacks after the downgrade.
The state opposed the demand, submitting that security cover was determined on the basis of threat assessments and that a person could not claim a particular category of protection as an enforceable right.
The court also questioned whether the authorities had properly considered the alleged incidents after the security downgrade and why a fresh assessment had not been initiated.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Rao reserved the order on Banerjee’s plea for restoration of Z-Plus security.