New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra. The Krishnanagar lawmaker had sought directions to allow her to appear virtually before an investigating officer of the West Bengal Police in connection with a case registered against her for allegedly making provocative remarks.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu declined to grant any relief, prompting Moitra's legal counsel to withdraw the petition. The top court subsequently dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
The controversy originates from an incident on 1 July, when eggs and vegetables were allegedly thrown at a TMC office in Krishnanagar while Moitra was inside. Following this, Moitra posted videos on social media in which she commented on the incident. She stated that those who wished to target her with eggs should "wear a burqa" if they wished to remain hidden.
Based on these remarks, a local Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader lodged a police complaint. The complainant alleged that Moitra’s comments offended religious sentiments and promoted communal disharmony, leading to the registration of an FIR at the Hogolberia police station in Nadia district.
Moitra subsequently approached the Calcutta High Court seeking to quash the FIR and obtain protection from coercive police action. On 21 July, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya of the High Court granted her interim protection from arrest until 5 October. However, this protection was made conditional upon her cooperation with the probe, and she was specifically directed to physically appear before the investigating officer on 14 August.
Challenging this specific requirement of physical appearance, Moitra moved the top court. During the hearing on Friday, her counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, submitted that Moitra has a legal right under law to appear virtually before the police. He argued that she faced a credible threat of physical violence and mob attacks if she appeared in person at the police station in her constituency.
Sankaranarayanan pointed out that during her previous visits to the area, there were threats of egg-throwing, and eggs were actually hurled at her. He requested the Bench to permit her to be questioned via video-conferencing instead of physical attendance.
The Bench, however, remained unconvinced by these submissions. Justice Dipankar Datta questioned whether the request for virtual appearance was being made simply because she holds office as a Member of Parliament.
Addressing her apprehension regarding egg-throwing, Justice Datta orally remarked that those who enter public life must be prepared for such challenges. He noted that having taken the plunge into politics, she should not fear eggs, comparing her situation to India's freedom fighters who faced bullets on their chests. The court added that such applications should not be brought before the Supreme Court.
The Bench further remarked that Moitra must cooperate with the probe as directed, advising her to comply with the High Court's directions. It noted that if she fails to appear, she would have to face the consequences before the High Court.
Following these observations, Moitra's counsel requested permission to withdraw the petition, which the court allowed.
Case title: MAHUA MOITRA Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL | SLP(Crl) No. 14405/2026 Diary No. 47058 / 2026
