Calcutta HC reserves order on Abhishek Banerjee’s plea over downgrade of security cover

The Calcutta High Court has reserved its order on Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee’s plea challenging the reduction of his security cover from Z+ to X category, after questioning the West Bengal government over its decision to wait until the next scheduled review despite receiving representations about subsequent alleged attacks.

Justice Krishna Rao asked the State why it had not convened the Security Review Committee before the expiry of the usual six-month interval, given that Banerjee had brought fresh incidents to the authorities’ attention and sought enhanced protection.

“The question is, you have received a request, these incidents have happened, is there any rule that you cannot hold the review committee before six months?” the Court asked.

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Banerjee, told the Court that the MP had been provided Z+ security since 2013 on the basis of the threat perception. However, his security cover was downgraded to X category on May 12, three days after the new government was sworn in on May 9.

Alam argued that the decision had been taken without any discussion or meeting of the competent Security Review Committee, which alone was authorised to alter the security arrangements. He alleged that the authorities had acted on a recommendation rather than a formal decision by the committee.

Petitioner cites six alleged attacks after security downgrade

The petitioner's counsel submitted that six attacks had taken place against Banerjee and members of his family since his security cover was reduced. He alleged that the authorities had failed to respond to subsequent representations seeking enhanced protection.

Alam also told the Court that police pickets outside Banerjee's residence and office had been removed. Referring to the latest incident, he said a JCB machine had been brought to the area at around 6.30 am on Thursday to demolish the police post outside the MP's residence.

Describing the timing of the security downgrade as significant, the counsel said it had taken place “one day after change of government”. He argued that the haste with which the protection was reduced gave rise to a presumption of mala fides.

Alam further submitted that Banerjee feared a possible political assassination and was seeking only an emergency review of his security arrangements.

Opposing the petition, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya, representing the State, argued that an individual could not claim a particular category of security cover as a matter of right.

The AAG said Banerjee's security was reduced on May 12 and that a subsequent review was conducted on May 29. He submitted that security assessments were ordinarily carried out every six months, with the next review scheduled for the end of November.

According to the State, Z+ security was generally provided to certain constitutional functionaries, including the Chief Minister and the Governor. Banerjee had been assigned X-category protection because the Kolkata Police had not made a specific threat assessment warranting a higher level of security, the AAG submitted.

Court questions findings of May 29 security review

The Court sought to know whether the May 29 review had taken into account the incidents that allegedly occurred after Banerjee's security was downgraded.

“Where are your reports taking into consideration the incidents that happened after May?” the Court asked.

It also questioned the State about where the authorities had recorded a finding that there was no threat to the petitioner.

The AAG responded that the relevant reports reflected the State's assessment and pointed out that several other MPs were also receiving X-category security.

The Court, however, observed that the authorities should have reconsidered Banerjee's security arrangements after receiving specific complaints about subsequent incidents instead of waiting for the next scheduled review.

“Once you have reduced, then also reconsider,” the Court said, questioning why the State was waiting for six months despite receiving representations about fresh security concerns.

It also asked the government to take note of the incidents placed before it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

State seeks contempt proceedings over Banerjee's interview

The hearing also saw an exchange between the State and the petitioner's counsel over an interview given by Banerjee, which the AAG alleged amounted to criminal contempt of court.

At the beginning of the proceedings, Bhattacharya submitted a transcript of the interview and alleged that the MP had cast aspersions on the judiciary by naming a judge. He also placed a pen drive containing the video recording of the broadcast interview before the Court.

Arguing that the remarks amounted to an attack on an institution by an elected Member of Parliament, the AAG urged the Court to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against Banerjee.

“This case is covered under the Contempt of Courts Act. This cannot go on,” he submitted.

Alam opposed the request, arguing that the interview was unrelated to the relief sought in the writ petition. He said Banerjee's remarks had been made in the context of alleged attacks on his residence, when his wife and children were inside, and his repeated attempts to obtain protection from the authorities.

Describing the comments as an expression of exasperation, the counsel argued that Banerjee was seeking protection of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and should not be denied relief because of the interview.

He reiterated that the petitioner had faced six attacks and alleged that the State's failure to provide adequate protection reflected a breakdown of law and order.

The Court, however, questioned Banerjee's remarks about the judiciary and asked the counsel to explain the allegations made against judges.

“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,” the Court remarked.

It observed that Banerjee was an educated person and a sitting MP and could not be treated as an ordinary layperson.

“Your client is writing the ACR of the judges,” the Court said.

The Court also observed that if Banerjee was aggrieved by an earlier judicial order, he could have approached another bench. It pointed out that vacation benches were also available for hearing urgent matters.

However, the Court made it clear that the interview should not affect the adjudication of the petition concerning Banerjee's security.

“Because of one publication, the writ petition should not be affected. I will take into account everything and pass orders,” it observed.

The hearing concluded with the Court reserving its order on Banerjee's plea.