Calcutta HC adjourns hearing till July 30 on Abhishek Banerjee’s petition against 8 FIRs

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday adjourned hearing till July 30 on TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee’s petition seeking protection from coercive action in eight FIRs lodged against him in different police stations.

The court also held that Banerjee’s lawyer cannot cite Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari as an example in his case. Adjourning the matter till July 30, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya directed Banerjee’s counsel to bring to the notice of the court if any action is taken against him in the meantime in connection with the eight FIRs.

Contending that the high court had granted protection to Adhikari in 17 FIRs against him when he was the Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal assembly, Banerjee’s lawyer stated that it had also then directed future FIRs could not be registered against him without the court’s permission. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the TMC MP, argued that if it was good for Adhikari, it should be good for Banerjee, too. Justice Bhattacharyya maintained that Adhikari cannot be cited as an example, stating that prayers must be taken up on a case-to-case basis.

Upon hearing the initial contention of Sibal seeking protection from coercive action by the police, Justice Bhattacharyya verbally said it cannot give protection to the Trinamool Congress leader at this stage since these prosecution matters were pending for a pretty long time.

Sibal sought protection to Banerjee in the eight FIRs against him, including one at Bhabanipur police station in Kolkata, another at Siliguri, one at Kalitala, and one more at Bishnupur in South 24 Parganas district over various issues. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the West Bengal Government, prayed for adjournment since the Solicitor General will argue on behalf of the state.

Accommodating the state’s prayer, Justice Bhattacharyya directed that the matter would appear for hearing again on July 30. Justice Bhattacharyya also asked how in one petition all the eight matters can be clubbed since the court has to consider on a case-to-case basis.

Sibal said he is not seeking a joint protection, but will present each case based on the individual FIRs. He stated that these FIRs are not related to the cases in which Banerjee has already been granted protection from coercive action by the high court.

The Diamond Harbour MP was granted protection from coercive action by the court in a signature forgery case regarding the party’s choice of Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal assembly, and in an alleged intimidatory speech case during the assembly poll campaign.

Additional Solicitor General Raju objected to Banerjee’s prayer, stating that a single petition cannot challenge several FIRs.