Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim protection from coercive police action to Trinamool Congress national general secretary and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee till July 29 in connection with an FIR lodged over his alleged controversial remarks during an election campaign rally last month.

At the same time, the court made strong observations on the nature of the comments attributed to the Trinamool leader, with Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya questioning whether a parliamentarian should make statements capable of triggering tension in a state long scarred by allegations of post-poll violence.

Refusing to quash the FIR filed against Abhishek, the court directed him to cooperate fully with the investigation and comply with notices issued by the investigating officer.

The matter is scheduled to come up for hearing again on July 29.

The court further directed Abhishek, former chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s nephew and Trinamool second-in-command, not to leave the country without the court’s permission.

It also observed that if there was any instance of Abhishek’s “non-cooperation”, the police would be at liberty to approach the court seeking appropriate directions.

Simultaneously, the court ordered the investigating agency to issue any summons to Abhishek at least 48 hours in advance.

The FIR was lodged against the MP for his alleged provocative comments that petitioners perceived as threatening.

During the hearing, the court witnessed sharp exchanges as senior lawyer and Trinamool MP Kalyan Banerjee, appearing on Abhishek’s behalf, sought exemption from the latter’s mandatory physical appearance and requested permission for virtual appearance, citing apprehensions of possible “harassment”. Rejecting the plea, Justice Bhattacharyya observed curtly: “That is not possible.”

The judge repeatedly expressed concern over the tone and implications of the remarks allegedly made by Abhishek during the poll campaign.

Addressing Kalyan Banerjee, Justice Bhattacharya said: “You are saying that your client is the general secretary of the All India Trinamool Congress and a three-time MP. Then why would he make such unwarranted comments? Why would he do this before elections in a state that has a dark history of post-poll violence?”

Allegations of electoral violence have remained a recurring flashpoint in Bengal politics, and in recent years have frequently triggered fierce confrontations between the Trinamool Congress and the BJP. The BJP, when it was in the Opposition, consistently accused Trinamool, then the ruling party, of fostering a culture of political intimidation after elections. Trinamool would deny the allegations.

Attempting to defend his client, Kalyan Banerjee referred to alleged remarks made by Union home minister Amit Shah and argued that provocative political statements were not uncommon during campaign speeches.

“Political leaders make such comments in public meetings,” Kalyan Banerjee submitted before the court. The argument, however, failed to convince the bench.

Justice Bhattacharya said: “No one else is being discussed here. You have come to the court, that is why questions are being asked. Why would the general secretary of an all-India party make such comments? Can such provocative comments be expected from him?”

Replying to the court’s observations, Kalyan Banerjee argued, “Crime and conduct are two different things. We have to examine whether any offence has actually been committed through that statement.”

In reply, outgoing additional advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar said: “His (Abhishek Banerjee) comments had potential elements to incite violence which cannot be ignored”.

The court then asked the state government whether custodial interrogation of the Trinamool MP was necessary at this stage of the investigation.

Majumdar informed the court that right now there was no requirement to arrest
the accused and no coercive steps had yet been initiated against him.

He submitted that investigators were examining whether the alleged remarks had any connection with incidents of post-poll violence or provocation.

Making another pointed observation, Justice Bhattacharyya said: “Such comments cannot be accepted from him (Abhishek). He should make sensible comments. In a democratic country, any party can win or lose. Is there any need for an MP to make such comments?”

The FIR was registered on May 15 at the Bidhannagar cyber crime police station based on a complaint lodged by social activist Rajib Sarkar, who accused Abhishek of threatening Union home minister Amit Shah and inciting political tension through his public speech.

Three days later, on May 18, Abhishek moved Calcutta High Court seeking an order quashing the FIR amid growing political speculation over the possibility of coercive action against the influential Trinamool leader.