In a significant legal setback for Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, an Alipore court has issued an interim injunction restraining her from making or circulating defamatory statements against West Bengal Chief Secretary Manoj Agarwal, following allegations that she publicly described the senior bureaucrat as a “vote thief” and accused him of illegally disenfranchising millions of legitimate voters.

The court has prohibited Moitra from publishing, sharing or circulating statements on social media or any other public platform that could defame Agarwal or accuse him of electoral manipulation, vote theft or other illegal activities.

The court has also directed the Trinamool MP to remove two social media posts, dated October 3 and October 6, within 24 hours of receiving the order.

Issuing a notice to Moitra, the court asked her to show cause why the interim injunction should not be made permanent. The matter has been listed for its next hearing on January 5.

Court draws line between political criticism and defamation

In its observations, the court distinguished between legitimate criticism of government policies and unsubstantiated allegations against individual public officials.

The court noted that Moitra’s social media posts went beyond criticism of the Special Summary Revision (SIR) exercise and contained specific allegations of illegal conduct against the Chief Secretary.

According to the court’s observations, no credible evidence had been placed before it to substantiate the serious accusations made against Agarwal.

While acknowledging that citizens and political representatives have the right to question government policies and administrative decisions in the public interest, the court observed that such freedom cannot be used as a shield for making defamatory allegations against individual officials.

The court’s intervention comes amid political controversy surrounding the electoral roll revision exercise and allegations of wrongful deletion of legitimate voters’ names.

‘Vote Thief’ remark at centre of legal battle

The defamation proceedings stem from social media posts in which Moitra allegedly described Agarwal, a former Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal, as a “vote thief” and accused him of facilitating the unlawful disenfranchisement of millions of genuine Bengali voters.

In one of the disputed posts, the Trinamool MP allegedly warned Agarwal: “The country will come after you now. You will not get away with this.”

Agarwal approached the court, contending that the allegations were false, malicious and damaging to his professional standing and personal reputation.

His counsel argued that the senior IAS officer had neither participated in vote theft nor engaged in electoral manipulation or any other unlawful activity.

Instead, the counsel maintained, Agarwal had discharged his statutory and administrative responsibilities in accordance with the law and the directives issued by the Election Commission.

The Chief Secretary’s legal team further contended that attributing criminal or illegal conduct to a senior constitutional functionary without supporting evidence amounted to an attack on his integrity and professional credibility.

Rs 10 Crore compensation, written apology sought

Apart from seeking an injunction against further allegedly defamatory statements, Agarwal has demanded Rs 10 crore in compensation for the alleged damage to his reputation.

He has also sought an additional Rs 50,000 towards legal and incidental expenses incurred in pursuing the case.

The relief sought against Moitra includes a written apology and an undertaking that she will refrain from making similar defamatory statements against Agarwal in the future.

The immediate judicial direction, however, concerns the removal of the two disputed social media posts and restrictions on further defamatory publications. The demands for an apology, undertaking and monetary compensation form part of the relief sought by Agarwal.

Next hearing on January 5

The interim injunction marks the first significant judicial intervention in the dispute between the Trinamool MP and the senior bureaucrat.

With the court seeking Moitra’s response on why the restrictions should not be made permanent, the next hearing on January 5 will be crucial in determining the future course of the defamation proceedings.

The case also raises a broader legal question concerning the boundaries of political criticism, freedom of expression and the protection of an individual public official’s reputation amid contentious debates over electoral administration.

Editorial note: This article is based on the details provided. The court order has not been independently verified. The copy distinguishes between the court’s interim directions and the additional relief sought by Agarwal. The official expansion of “SIR” should also be checked before publication, as it commonly refers to Special Intensive Revision in the electoral-roll context.