The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday questioned the West Bengal government over the reduction of Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee’s security cover and sought a detailed report explaining the decision. Justice Krishna Rao also raised concerns about the consequences if the Diamond Harbour MP were to face another attack while his security arrangements remain curtailed.
The court has directed the state to place its report before it at the next hearing on October 13, including details of when and why Banerjee’s security was downgraded and what action was taken after he sought protection following an alleged attack at Sonarpur.
Banerjee had previously been provided Z-plus security, with his counsel telling the court that the protection was withdrawn after the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections. His lawyers have alleged that the security was subsequently reduced to the X category.
His lawyers, Gopal Shankar Narayanan and Ayan Bhattacharjee, argued that the reduction was made without adequate notice or an explanation and claimed that Banerjee had faced several security incidents since the downgrade.
The court questioned whether the state had produced documentation showing how the decision to reduce the protection had been reached. According to the hearing, the state's Director of Security had not placed before the court an order explaining the withdrawal.
Sonarpur incident cited in court
A key point in the petition is an incident in Sonarpur in late May, when Banerjee was visiting the family of deceased Trinamool worker Sanju Karmakar. Reports and submissions in court referred to allegations that eggs and other objects were thrown at the MP during the visit.
Banerjee's lawyers have cited the incident as evidence of the risks he faces after the security reduction. They have also claimed that he has faced several other attacks or threats.
The court, however, has not yet ordered the restoration of the earlier security cover. Instead, it has sought the state's explanation and details of the security assessment.
Centre and state present their positions
During Tuesday's hearing, the Centre's counsel argued that security arrangements are determined after assessing an individual's threat perception and that the responsibility for providing security rests with the state authorities.
The state's lawyers told the court that the security arrangement had been reviewed before the downgrade and sought additional time to submit a detailed report.
The proceedings therefore remain focused on whether the state followed the appropriate procedure and considered the relevant security concerns before reducing Banerjee's protection.
‘If there is another attack, who will take responsibility?’
Justice Krishna Rao's concern centred on the potential consequences while the matter remains under consideration.
The judge questioned the seriousness of an attack involving a projectile, observing: “A stone being thrown may be a minor offence. But what happens if that stone hits the body and causes injury?”
The court then raised the broader question of accountability if Banerjee were to face another attack before the state submits its report.
The matter will return to the Calcutta High Court on October 13, when the West Bengal government is expected to place its detailed response before the court.
