The Calcutta High Court is expected to hear Trinamool Congress National General Secretary and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee’s petition challenging the CID’s summons in the ongoing alleged signature-forgery investigation, a case that has rapidly emerged as one of the most politically charged legal battles in West Bengal.
Banerjee has approached the High Court seeking relief against repeated summons issued by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in connection with the so-called “Signgate” controversy, which revolves around allegations that signatures of several Trinamool legislators were forged on a letter submitted to the West Bengal Assembly Secretariat. Investigators contend that the document, reportedly carrying the signatures of around 70 MLAs, was submitted under Banerjee’s letterhead, prompting the CID to seek his examination as part of the probe.
The matter gained further significance after Banerjee failed to appear before CID officials on multiple occasions, citing health concerns and prior engagements in Delhi. Subsequently, the agency issued fresh notices and continued its efforts to question the Trinamool leader regarding the origins and handling of the disputed document.
During proceedings before the High Court, senior advocate Kishore Dutta, appearing for the Trinamool camp, alleged that investigative authorities had exceeded their mandate while conducting searches linked to the case. According to submissions made before the court, CID officers entered the party office at Kalighat and carried out a search operation without producing a search warrant.
Dutta further alleged that party officials present at the premises were detained and that documents were scanned and removed during the operation. He argued that the actions amounted to harassment and raised serious concerns regarding procedural fairness in the investigation.
“This pertains to police access, regarding the search which was carried out without any search warrant,” the counsel submitted before the court while seeking urgent intervention. He also claimed that there were no independent witnesses present during the search operation and questioned the legality of the manner in which documents were collected.
The CID, however, has maintained that its actions were conducted in accordance with law. Investigators have argued that Banerjee’s testimony is crucial to establishing the authenticity of the signatures and tracing the original resolution connected to the disputed letter. According to the agency, all summons and search procedures were properly documented and videographed as part of the investigation.
The High Court had earlier declined to grant an urgent hearing on complaints relating to the CID search operation, directing that the matter be taken up in the normal course. The court is now expected to examine Banerjee’s challenge to the summons, along with questions concerning the scope and conduct of the investigation.
The controversy stems from a political dispute over a letter submitted to the Assembly Secretariat regarding legislative appointments and organisational decisions within the Trinamool Congress. Allegations subsequently surfaced that several legislators whose names appeared on the document had neither signed it nor authorised its submission, leading to a formal complaint and the launch of a CID investigation.
The outcome of the hearing is likely to have significant implications for both the investigation and the broader political narrative surrounding the ruling party. While Banerjee’s legal team has portrayed the summons and search operations as instances of investigative overreach, the CID has insisted that the probe is necessary to uncover the truth behind the alleged forgery.
