'Who Are The Judges With BJP And Who Aren't?': Calcutta HC Pulls Up Abhishek Banerjee Over Judiciary Remarks

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday pulled up Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee over his alleged remarks casting aspersions on a section of the judiciary, questioning his claim that certain judges were aligned with the BJP.

During the hearing of Banerjee's plea challenging the downgrade of his security cover from Z+ to X category, Justice Krishna Rao asked the TMC leader's counsel to have his client identify the judges allegedly associated with the BJP.

"You ask your client, who are the judges with the BJP and who aren't... since he is so intelligent, let him give a list. I will see," Justice Rao remarked. The judge also observed that Banerjee, being an educated person and an elected representative, could not be treated like an ordinary layperson.

"Your client is writing the ACR (Annual Confidential Report) of the judges," Justice Rao said. The observations came after the West Bengal government accused Banerjee of making remarks in a televised interview that amounted to criminal contempt of court.

The state urged the bench to initiate suo motu proceedings against the TMC MP. However, Justice Rao clarified that the controversy surrounding Banerjee's comments would not influence the court's decision on his security-related plea.

The bench reserved its order after hearing the arguments. Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya, appearing for the West Bengal government, submitted a transcript of Banerjee's interview along with a pen drive containing its video recording.

He alleged that the TMC MP had cast aspersions on the judiciary by naming a judge, arguing that his remarks amounted to an attack on a constitutional institution by a sitting MP. "This case is covered under the Contempt of Courts Act.

This cannot be allowed to continue," Bhattacharya submitted. Opposing the state's argument, senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Banerjee, maintained that the remarks had no bearing on the relief sought in the writ petition.

Alam submitted that Banerjee's comments were made in the context of alleged attacks on his residence when his wife and children were present, and his repeated attempts to seek protection from the authorities. Describing the remarks as an expression of exasperation, the counsel argued that Banerjee was seeking protection of his fundamental right to life under Article 21 and should not be denied relief on account of the interview.

He also told the court that Banerjee had faced six attacks and that the state's failure to provide adequate security reflected a breakdown of law and order. Justice Rao further observed that if Banerjee was aggrieved by an earlier order, he could have approached another bench, pointing out that vacation benches were available to hear such grievances.

At the same time, the court made it clear that the controversy over his remarks would not derail the hearing of his security plea. "Because of one publication, the writ petition should not be affected. I will take into account everything and pass orders," the judge observed.

Banerjee's counsel argued that the threat perception assessed by the state government did not reflect the situation on the ground.