kolkata

IIE DIGITAL DESK : The Calcutta High Court has ruled that no coercive action can be taken against Trinamool Congress (TMC) national general secretary and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee in connection with an FIR filed over alleged inflammatory remarks made during election campaigning. The court has made it clear that the MP must fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation and cannot evade legal scrutiny.

The order comes after Banerjee moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR lodged against him by Bidhannagar Cyber Crime Police Station. The case was registered on May 15 following a complaint alleging that he made provocative and allegedly threatening statements during election rallies, including comments targeting Union Home Minister Amit Shah and speeches said to have been capable of disturbing public order during the West Bengal Assembly election campaign.

The police complaint, the allegations stem from speeches delivered across multiple rallies and social media posts during the election period. The FIR invokes several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Representation of the People Act, citing offences related to promoting enmity, criminal intimidation, and circulation of inflammatory content. 

The court refused to immediately quash the FIR, effectively allowing the investigation to continue. At the same time, it issued safeguards for the MP, ruling that:

• No coercive action such as arrest should be taken without prior permission of the court

• Abhishek Banerjee must cooperate with the investigation

• If he fails to cooperate, police are permitted to inform the court

• The court does not presently see the need for custodial interrogation

• The MP cannot travel abroad without prior permission of the court

The bench also remarked that allegations of this nature against a senior political leader and national general secretary of a political party are “not desirable,” especially in the context of electoral discourse.

The court further observed that while political speech is part of democratic functioning, any statements that potentially incite unrest or target constitutional authorities require careful judicial scrutiny. It also noted the importance of considering the broader context of post-election tensions while assessing the allegations.

The FIR was triggered after a complaint filed by a social activist shortly after the West Bengal Assembly election results were declared. The complainant alleged that Banerjee’s remarks during campaign rallies and online platforms amounted to inflammatory speech that could disturb communal harmony and public peace.

The case has drawn political attention, with the TMC alleging selective targeting, while opposition voices argue that accountability applies equally to all public representatives.

Banerjee has already approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, and the matter is expected to continue in further hearings.

If you want, I can also rewrite this as a breaking news TV script, a short newspaper brief, or a more editorial-style analysis piece.