Calcutta High Court restrains police from action against Abhishek Banerjee until August 6

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the respondents virtually, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability: “I have a preliminary objection on maintainability. They have sought omnibus relief. That cannot be granted. They need to file separate petitions for each FIR.”

The bench observed that details for several FIRs had not been furnished to the petitioner and noted that the court would restrict its review to the cases where proper particulars were available. The court also remarked that interim relief cannot ordinarily be granted without an appropriate substantive prayer.

Countering the maintainability objection, Banerjee’s counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, said, “Particulars of four FIRs have not even been provided to us. Regarding the point that separate petitions are needed for each FIR, I would remind the court of 2021. After the election results, when TMC came to power, a series of FIRs were registered against Suvendu Adhikari.”

“Each petition filed listed multiple FIRs, and in each instance, this court granted interim relief at the motion stage. The court looked at the spate of FIRs post-results and the timing. That has been the court’s approach toward political opponents, and it remains a fair approach.”

The bench acknowledged that petitions challenging multiple FIRs together had indeed been entertained previously, though noted that the maintainability objection was not specifically argued in those proceedings.

‘A spate of delayed complaints’

Highlighting what he termed a systemic pattern of harassment, Sankaranarayanan stated, “Three more FIRs have been registered since the last hearing, taking the total to 11. A host of complaints were filed after May 4, following election results. In one tweet, he used the phrase ‘Bangla birodhi Gujarati gang’—not targeting all Gujaratis, but using standard political speech. Seven of these FIRs were filed by an individual who lost against my client in two elections. Given this pattern, we apprehend new FIRs every week.”

Sankaranarayanan argued that the complaints relied on delayed and groundless allegations: He said an April incident regarding a DJ speech was registered only in June after election results. A complaint alleging illicit mining since 2017 was registered in 2026 without specifying an offence, he argued.

A June 16 complaint alleged misallocation of public cyclone relief funds from 2020, six years after the event, without explaining the delay, the counsel noted. Another complaint pertained to a private initiative from 2023, he said.

“They are burdening an already stretched police system to go on a fishing expedition and see if any offence can be found,” Sankaranarayanan submitted, urging the court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent abuse of process as established in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal.

Court refuses blanket protection on future FIRs

Banerjee’s counsel also requested protection against any future FIRs arising out of the same pattern. The bench declined to grant blanket protection for future cases, observing that if additional FIRs are to be included, appropriate supplementary pleadings must be filed and the respective complainants impleaded.

Pushing back against the plea, SG Tushar Mehta argued, “They want an advance ruling to prevent the police from registering FIRs. Merely being political opponents or omitting a name from an FIR is not grounds for cancelling. Nobody has said he will be arrested or given different treatment from an ordinary citizen.”

The court noted, “All these FIRs came after election results. In related matters, we have already granted protection while allowing the investigation to proceed. If a similar order is passed, where is the difficulty?”

Clarifying that it was not cancelling any FIR at this preliminary stage, the High Court deemed it appropriate to grant interim protection from coercive action while the maintainability issues remain under consideration.

Earlier, the Trinamool MP had received similar interim protection against coercive action in separate cases handled by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), including the West Bengal Assembly signatures fraud case and the DJ speech case.