'Submit List of BJP and Trinamool Judges': Calcutta High Court Questions Abhishek Banerjee

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday questioned Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee over his reported remarks alleging political bias within the judiciary, with Justice Krishna Rao asking his lawyer to submit a list of judges allegedly associated with the BJP and the Trinamool Congress. The observation came during a hearing on Banerjees petition challenging the West Bengal governments decision to downgrade his security cover from Z+ to X category.

During the proceedings, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya, appearing for the West Bengal government, referred to a recent interview in which Banerjee allegedly questioned the impartiality of certain judges. He also submitted a video recording and transcript of the interview before the court. The state government argued that the TMC leaders remarks amounted to criminal contempt as they could undermine public confidence in the judiciary. It urged the High Court to consider initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against him.

Responding to the submissions, Justice Rao questioned Banerjees lawyer, Shoeb Alam, about the basis of his clients allegations. The judge reportedly asked him to provide the names of judges who were allegedly aligned with the BJP and those associated with the Trinamool Congress. The court also observed that Banerjee appeared to be making judgments about members of the judiciary through his public statements.

Alam defended his clients remarks, arguing that they should be considered in the context of his concerns about personal security and alleged attacks. He maintained that Banerjee had approached the court seeking protection of his fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The TMC MP had reportedly made the controversial comments at a public gathering on November 7, expressing dissatisfaction with the handling of his legal petition and questioning the conduct of certain judicial proceedings.

Banerjee has challenged the state governments decision to reduce his security protection, which his lawyer said had been upgraded to Z+ category in 2013. The security cover was subsequently downgraded to X category in May 2026 following a government review. His counsel argued that the decision failed to adequately consider alleged security threats and incidents involving the MP after the reduction in protection. According to the lawyer, Banerjee had faced six attacks and had repeatedly raised concerns about his safety.

The state government, meanwhile, maintained that security arrangements are determined through periodic threat assessments. Its counsel informed the court that Banerjees security would be reviewed at the next scheduled assessment meeting towards the end of November. The bench also questioned why the authorities could not conduct an earlier review in view of the security concerns raised by the petitioner.

Justice Rao indicated that the controversy surrounding Banerjees interview would not influence the courts consideration of his security petition. The judge said the matter would be examined independently on its merits. The Calcutta High Court subsequently reserved its order on Banerjees plea challenging the reduction of his security cover. The proceedings have brought the relationship between political criticism and judicial independence into focus, with the state government questioning Banerjees remarks and the TMC leader maintaining that his concerns relate to his personal safety.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from PTI.