In a significant legal development, a local court in West Bengal issued an arrest warrant on Wednesday, 19th August, against Trinamool Congress (TMC) Lok Sabha Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra. The judicial action was initiated after the lawmaker repeatedly failed to appear before the bench in connection with an ongoing hate speech case, despite being served with multiple official summonses.

The directive came from the Third Judicial Magistrate of the Krishnanagar court, who ordered that the warrant be executed without delay and instructed authorities to submit an execution report back to the court by 28th August. The legal action draws notable attention given that Moitra represents the Krishnanagar constituency in the Lok Sabha.

The court took this step after Moitra failed to attend the scheduled hearing on Wednesday, ignoring an explicit notice issued just a day earlier on Tuesday directing her physical presence. During the proceedings, her defense counsel submitted that she could not appear in person due to a strong likelihood of being heckled by crowds gathered outside the court premises. The presiding magistrate firmly dismissed this explanation, observing that the parliamentarian showed “no respect for the law.”

Expressing strong disapproval of her persistent non-compliance, the court stated:

“The series of disobedience of the order of this court goes to show the lackadaisical approach of the accused to comply with the court order and accordingly this court is left with no other option but to issue a warrant of arrest against her.”

The origin of the current legal case traces back to a video message Moitra released after an earlier incident outside the court. In that instance, a group of women had gathered at the premises holding eggs upon learning that the MP was scheduled to appear. In response through her video, Moitra had told the women to wear veils and suggested they organize other events.

Following the release of that video, a formal complaint was lodged by six women residing in the Ghurni area. The complainants stated that her remarks, including specific comments regarding the wearing of a Tulsi mala, caused serious offense to religious feelings and traditions. They argued that the statements were deeply insulting across communities and hurt broader religious sentiments. In addition, the formal complaint highlighted remarks made by the MP concerning Hindu beliefs, the Indian Army, and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Based on these allegations, the parliamentarian faces charges under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). These include:

• Section 79 (acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman)
• Section 196 (promoting enmity between different groups)
• Section 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings)
• Section 351 (criminal intimidation)
• Section 353(2) (hate speech and statements creating public mischief)

Moitra Faces Additional Legal Trouble in Separate Hate Speech Matter

This warrant comes amid wider legal challenges for the Krishnanagar MP. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain an appeal filed by Moitra challenging an adverse order from the Calcutta High Court. The High Court had directed her to appear directly before the police on 15th August in connection with a separate hate speech inquiry. A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu declined to intervene, making it clear that they found no reason to disrupt the High Court's ruling.

During those Supreme Court proceedings, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for Moitra, argued that she held the legal right to appear before investigating officers through virtual means rather than in person. Her counsel submitted that she faced tangible safety risks, pointing out that she had first been threatened with eggs and was later targeted when eggs were actually thrown at her during a subsequent instance.

The Supreme Court bench rejected the plea, offering a sharp oral reprimand to the lawmaker:

“You are a Member of Parliament. Having taken the plunge into politics, you fear eggs? When our freedom fighters have taken bullets on their chest? These are applications that should not come before this court at all.”