The Supreme Court of India has granted Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee permission to travel abroad for three weeks in September to undergo eye treatment. This decision was made on August 10, following Banerjee’s petition seeking to lift certain restrictions imposed by the Calcutta High Court in connection with an alleged hate speech case.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana specified that Banerjee must adhere to certain conditions during his travel. He is required to use his diplomatic passport and provide a detailed itinerary, including information about his location, medical practitioners, duration of stay, and flight details.

The Supreme Court remarked that law enforcement agencies may utilise the information provided by Banerjee but must maintain confidentiality regarding these details. This ruling marks a significant step in Banerjee’s ongoing legal battles surrounding his travel restrictions.

Background on Legal Challenges

Banerjee’s journey to the Supreme Court was prompted by a previous ruling from the Calcutta High Court, which had rejected his initial request to lift travel limitations imposed on him as part of an investigation into hate speech allegations. The High Court had mandated his cooperation with ongoing investigations while prohibiting him from leaving the country.

This situation prompted Banerjee to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention a second time, leading to the Court instructing the Calcutta High Court to evaluate his request. After the High Court failed to lift the travel restrictions, Banerjee again sought the Supreme Court’s approval, which ultimately granted him permission.

In July, the Calcutta High Court had previously instructed police not to take any coercive action against the Member of Parliament until the next scheduled hearing on August 6. The court also requested that police provide a comprehensive list of all FIRs against Banerjee up to that date. This demonstrates the complicated legal landscape surrounding Banerjee’s case.

Hearing Details and Legal Arguments

During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General, SV Raju, representing the state, contested the maintainability of Banerjee’s request, arguing that a blanket protection was not feasible. Raju stated that separate petitions ought to be filed for each of the multiple FIRs lodged against Banerjee.

Banerjee’s counsel, Advocate Shankar Narayan, countered this point, highlighting that several FIRs had been filed against his client, including some which were registered after election results were announced. Narayan brought attention to an alleged case of fund misappropriation linked to a project named ‘Sebashroy’, clarifying that this was a personal initiative by Banerjee for the elderly in Diamond Harbour, devoid of government involvement.

Throughout the proceedings, the court expressed concern over the timing of specific complaints, questioning the reasons behind delays in filing them. One complaint was scrutinised particularly, as Justice Bhattacharya noted a 25-day interval between the alleged incident and the formal complaint submission. Additionally, it was mentioned that one of the complainants had contested against Banerjee in previous elections and had been unsuccessful.

Despite these observations, the state opposed the plea for protective measures. SV Raju emphasised that legal recourse couldn’t be sought if only complaints had been made without FIR registrations. He maintained that for relief concerning an FIR, Banerjee must approach the court under Section 438 of the code.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share