Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection to Abhishek Banerjee in FIR Over Remarks Against Amit Shah

May 21, 2026 : The Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim protection from coercive action to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee in connection with an FIR registered over his alleged remarks against Union Home Minister Amit Shah during an election rally ahead of the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly elections.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed the West Bengal Police not to take any coercive steps against Banerjee till July 31, subject to his cooperation with the investigation.

The Court also directed Banerjee to comply with all notices issued by the investigating authorities and ordered that any notice requiring his appearance must be served at least 48 hours in advance. He was further restrained from travelling abroad without prior permission of the High Court. The Bench clarified that if Banerjee failed to cooperate with the investigation, the State authorities would be free to seek modification of the interim order.

Banerjee approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him over statements allegedly made during election rallies. According to the complaint, he delivered provocative speeches targeting opposition workers and allegedly made threatening remarks against Amit Shah during a roadshow held on April 7.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, appearing for Banerjee, argued that the criminal proceedings amounted to malicious prosecution and contended that the FIR had been lodged after the political change in the State.

During the hearing, the Court strongly criticised the nature of the alleged remarks and questioned the propriety of such statements being made by a sitting Member of Parliament during an election campaign. The Bench referred to the history of post-poll violence in West Bengal and observed that such comments could aggravate political tensions in the State.

The Court further remarked that the alleged statements were inappropriate and unnecessary in the prevailing political atmosphere.

In response, Banerjee’s counsel submitted that no material had been placed on record to establish any direct link between the alleged remarks and incidents of violence. It was argued that, in the absence of any consequential incident, the allegations did not warrant criminal prosecution. However, the Court reiterated that public representatives were expected to maintain restraint in political speeches.

Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumder, appearing for the State, opposed the grant of interim protection and argued that there was no apprehension of illegal action by the investigating agency since adequate procedural safeguards already existed under the law.

Senior Advocate Bilwadal Bhattacharyya, appearing for the complainant, also opposed the plea and submitted that incidents of violence had allegedly taken place following the statements attributed to Banerjee.