The Calcutta High Court on Thursday declined to grant urgent interim relief to Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in her petition seeking enhanced police protection following alleged incidents of mob attack and egg-pelting during her public engagements, observing that a First Information Report (FIR) had already been registered and protection had been granted in the matter.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed that the matter be listed for further consideration on July 29. Appearing for Moitra, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay submitted that the Member of Parliament had been repeatedly targeted during her public appearances and that the police had failed to take adequate preventive measures despite the recurring incidents.
The petitioner contended that the alleged attacks and public humiliation were preventing her from effectively discharging her constitutional and parliamentary duties as an elected representative, warranting immediate judicial intervention to ensure her safety.
Seeking urgent directions, counsel argued that police protection was necessary to enable Moitra to perform her public functions without fear of further attacks. However, the Court noted that protection had already been granted on the previous day and that the State had sought accommodation in the matter.
The Bench further observed that an FIR had already been registered in connection with the alleged incident and held that, in view of the criminal proceedings already initiated and the protective measures extended, the matter did not require immediate consideration. When the counsel pressed for an urgent hearing, the Court reiterated that since an FIR had been registered and protection was already in place, there was no occasion for granting urgent relief at this stage, and accordingly adjourned the matter to July 29.
The petition arises against the backdrop of recent incidents in which Moitra alleged that she was subjected to egg-pelting and mob attacks during political engagements. The issue had also figured in proceedings earlier this week before the same Bench in a separate petition filed by the Trinamool Congress MP seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against her over alleged remarks concerning Hindu girls.
On July 21, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya granted Moitra interim protection from coercive action until October 5 in the case registered at Hogolberia Police Station in Nadia district, subject to her cooperation with the investigation.
The Court directed her to appear before the Investigating Officer on August 14, after the conclusion of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, and observed that the offences invoked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) carried a maximum punishment of less than seven years, entitling her to protection from coercive action in accordance with settled legal principles, provided she complied with the investigation.
The Court also directed the police to ensure that she was not subjected to any egg-pelting or similar incidents when she appeared before the investigating agency.
During those proceedings, Moitra had contended that the criminal case against her was based on fabricated allegations and sought quashing of the proceedings. Her counsel submitted that while her complaints regarding the alleged mob attack and egg-pelting had initially not received adequate attention, multiple FIRs had subsequently been registered against her.
It was also argued that she was attending the Monsoon Session of Parliament in New Delhi and had sought permission to join the investigation virtually until August 13 before appearing in person on August 14. The State, represented by Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra, opposed the plea, contending that Moitra had failed to comply with four previous notices issued by the investigating agency. The High Court is scheduled to hear the matter relating to the criminal proceedings again on October 1.
The post Calcutta High Court denies enhanced police protection to Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra over egg-pelting incidents appeared first on India Legal.