On Tuesday, the Calcutta High Court declined to issue an expedited ruling on a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC). The party sought an immediate judicial intervention regarding the continued closure of the Camac Street office of its general secretary, Abhishek Banerjee, which was sealed by law enforcement over two months ago following an incident of vandalism on September 3.

The matter was brought before Justice Rishad Medora during the court's vacation session. After hearing arguments from both the petitioner's counsel and the state's representatives, Justice Medora determined that the circumstances did not warrant an emergency hearing outside of the regular judicial schedule.

"I have heard the Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner as well as the Learned Advocate General representing the State respondents. There does not appear to be any urgency in this matter for it to be considered by the vacation bench," Justice Medora observed.

In outlining the next steps, the Court stated, "In view of the foregoing let this matter be placed before the regular bench on November 23, 2026, subject to the convenience of the Court."

Additionally, the Court instructed the state's legal counsel to gather relevant information prior to the scheduled hearing. "In the meanwhile, the Learned Advocate General is requested to obtained necessary instruction in respect of the subject matter of the writ petition," Justice Medora directed.

The TMC's petition detailed a severe disruption at the Camac Street location. According to the filing, a group of fifteen masked individuals forcibly entered the premises on September 3. The intruders reportedly vandalized the office infrastructure, stole valuables, and destroyed the existing CCTV and surveillance systems. The petition further alleged that the assailants confined office staff in a restroom, threatening them with iron rods and bamboo sticks. The TMC claims this incident was orchestrated with the backing of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) following the recent West Bengal Legislative Assembly Elections.

TMC counsel submitted that following the attack, the party immediately filed a First Information Report (FIR). However, upon arriving at the scene after the perpetrators had fled, police authorities concurrently sealed the premises, citing the need for a forensic investigation into the vandalism, as well as alleged irregularities regarding a billboard installation and fire safety concerns. The fire department previously noted six safety violations, including an expired fire safety certificate dating back to August 10.

The prolonged closure has created operational and financial burdens for the party. The TMC’s legal representatives argued that they have submitted two formal requests to the police to reopen the office, emphasizing that electronic appliances, including lights and fans, remain active inside the sealed building, leading to mounting electricity costs and potential fire hazards. Despite these appeals and the pending forensic examination, no action has been taken.

Senior Advocate Sourav Chatterjee represented the TMC, with assistance from Advocates Arko Nag, Agnish Basu, Aditya Roy, Gourav Bose, and Kaushik Bandopadhyay. The state government was represented by Advocate General Surojit Nath Mitra, along with other state legal counsel.

The High Court has not yet deliberated on the underlying merits of the TMC's request to unseal the property; those arguments will be addressed when the Regular Bench convenes on November 23.

Security Downgrade Dispute Reaches Calcutta High Court

In a separate legal development on Thursday, the Calcutta High Court reserved its judgment on a petition filed by TMC Member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee. The petition challenges the West Bengal government's recent decision to reduce his personal security detail from a Z+ to an X category classification following the recent change in state leadership.

Justice Krishna Rao, presiding over the hearing, scrutinized the state government's handling of the security reassessment. The Court questioned why authorities had not initiated a fresh evaluation despite receiving multiple representations from Banerjee detailing alleged attacks on him and his family since the downgrade occurred.

The judge asked why the state was waiting for a routine six-month review instead of convening the Security Review Committee immediately to address these specific, documented incidents, asking if there were any legal or procedural barriers preventing an earlier assessment.

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, representing Banerjee, argued that his client had maintained Z+ security since 2013 due to a consistently high threat perception. He noted that this protective cover was abruptly reduced to the X category on May 12, just days after the new government took office on May 9. Alam contended that this downgrade was executed without the required deliberation or formal meeting of the competent Security Review Committee, the only body authorized to mandate such changes.

Alam further stated that since the reduction in security, Banerjee and his family have been the targets of six separate alleged attacks. He argued that the state has failed to respond adequately to requests for heightened protection and pointed out that police pickets previously stationed outside Banerjee’s residence and office had been removed. Highlighting the urgency of the situation, Alam informed the Court that a JCB machine had arrived outside Banerjee’s home early Thursday morning, at approximately 6:30 am, to dismantle an existing police post.

Banerjee's legal counsel argued that the rushed nature of the security reduction raised significant concerns about the decision-making process. Asserting that his client fears a potential political assassination, Alam stressed the immediate need for a comprehensive reassessment of Banerjee's security protocols based on the recent incidents.

Representing the state, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya countered that an individual does not possess an enforceable legal right to a specific category of security protection. He informed the Court that a security review had, in fact, been conducted on May 29. Bhattacharya explained that such assessments are typically performed at six-month intervals, with the next review slated for late November. According to the state's position, Banerjee was assigned X-category protection because the Kolkata Police did not provide a specific threat assessment that would justify a higher level of security.

Justice Rao challenged this stance, questioning whether the May 29 review had properly factored in the violent incidents alleged to have occurred after the security was initially downgraded. The Court also demanded to know where, precisely, the authorities had documented a formal finding that Banerjee faced no credible threat, emphasizing that the state cannot simply wait for a scheduled review when presented with fresh, detailed reports of immediate security risks.

The Court stressed that the state authorities have a legal obligation to reconsider security arrangements in light of new developments and to take appropriate, lawful action accordingly.

Court Addresses Contempt Allegations Amidst Security Hearing

During Thursday's proceedings, a secondary dispute arose regarding a recent public interview given by Banerjee. The state alleged that during this interview, the TMC MP made remarks that cast unwarranted aspersions on the judiciary.

Additional Advocate General Bhattacharya submitted both a transcript and a video recording of the interview on a pen drive to the Court. Claiming that Banerjee made objectionable statements about the judiciary and specifically referenced a judge, the state requested that the Court consider initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against him under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Senior Advocate Alam strongly opposed this request, arguing that the interview was entirely unrelated to the core issue of the writ petition—Banerjee's physical security. Alam contextualized the interview, stating that Banerjee's comments were made in the highly stressful aftermath of alleged attacks on his home while his wife and children were present, and following repeated, unanswered requests for adequate protection.

Alam maintained that Banerjee was exercising his fundamental right to seek the protection of his life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and argued that his legitimate grievances regarding his physical safety should not be undermined or prejudiced by statements made during a media interview.

The Court acknowledged the severity of the remarks, questioning the appropriateness of Banerjee's comments regarding the judiciary. Justice Rao noted that as a sitting Member of Parliament and an educated public representative, Banerjee is expected to demonstrate responsibility in his public statements. The judge remarked that if Banerjee had legitimate grievances concerning a specific judicial order, the proper course of action would be to pursue established legal remedies, such as appealing to another Bench.

However, the Court explicitly clarified that this secondary controversy regarding the interview would not be permitted to distract from or derail the adjudication of the primary issue: the petition regarding Banerjee's security cover. The Court affirmed that the writ petition would be decided strictly on the merits of the material presented concerning his physical safety.

Following these arguments, the Court reserved its order on Banerjee’s challenge against the reduction of his security detail.