Calcutta High Court dismisses Abhishek Banerjee’s plea to travel abroad for eye treatment

Appearing for Banerjee, Senior Advocate Rebecca John argued that the criminal cases against him carried a maximum punishment of three years, with most being bailable offences. She also cited previous instances where Banerjee was allowed to travel abroad for treatment in cases initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

“He went as many as 12 times between 2023 and 2025…Every time he has gone abroad, he has returned to the country on schedule. There is no fear that he will abscond. His wife and two children are in Kolkata. They will remain here. Abhishek is a Member of Parliament and holds a diplomatic passport. As a result, the government can easily keep track of every detail of his travels abroad.

Therefore, allowing him to go abroad will not cause any harm or inconvenience to the investigation or to the other party in the case. He has always cooperated with the investigation and has participated in the investigative process,” his counsel submitted.

The HC bench, in response, said that there are other cases pending against the TMC national general secretary and his travel would affect the proceedings.

“Several other cases against you are also pending, and hearings in those cases are ongoing. If you go abroad, what will happen to the hearings in those cases? This is not the only criminal case. There are several other cases against you,” Justice Bhattacharya said.

“It is certainly necessary for Abhishek Banerjee to receive medical treatment. But if that treatment is possible in Kolkata or anywhere else in India, then there is no need to go abroad. Appropriate treatment should be provided within the country. Whether the treatment will be abroad is not the main issue. The real issue is ensuring that he receives proper treatment,” the court said.

The court opined that appearing before doctors at SSKM was necessary to assess Banerjee’s medical condition and furnish an opinion before the bench whether it was necessary for him to go abroad or if the treatment can be administered in India.

Justice Bhattacharya also said that he was not satisfied with the credibility of the medical documents related to Abhishek’s treatment.

When the court repeatedly sought clarification on whether Banerjee was willing to appear before the SSKM medical board, Advocate John stated that he wished to travel abroad and would not submit to examination by the board. She also submitted that it was the right of the applicant to choose his doctor and medical institute for treatment, especially when it involves continuity of medical care.

“Where he chooses to receive treatment is a matter of his personal preference. He should not be restricted to the question of which country or which hospital he will go to. He has the right to receive treatment from a doctor or institution of his choice,” she said.

Recording this position, the Court observed that there were around 15 criminal cases pending against Banerjee, with proceedings continuing in several of them, making it necessary for the Court to satisfy itself that overseas travel was medically unavoidable.

“In view of such submission, this Court finds the issue agitated in the application ought not to be kept pending further. Hence, the application is dismissed,” the court held

“If this treatment can be administered in India, there is no need to go abroad. I will direct the Department of Ophthalmology in SSKM, a three-member medical board can check Banerjee and give a report. If treatment is very urgent, it can be administered in our country as well. India is not lagging in medical science; we are also making advancements. Even Supreme Court judges are getting treated in our country,” Justice Bhattacharya added.