E-Paper
‘Freedom fighters took bullets, you fear eggs?’: SC refuses to entertain Mahua Moitra’s plea
Faced with the court’s disinclination to grant relief, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, sought permission to withdraw the petition.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s plea seeking permission to join police interrogation through videoconferencing in a case over her allegedly provocative Facebook posts, telling her that having “taken the plunge into politics”, she could not shy away from appearing before investigators merely because she feared eggs being hurled at her.
“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,” a bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu remarked while declining to interfere with an order of the Calcutta high court directing Moitra to appear before the investigating officer in person.
Faced with the court’s disinclination to grant relief, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, sought permission to withdraw the petition. The bench dismissed it as withdrawn.
The case arises out of an FIR registered in June at Hogalbaria police station in West Bengal’s Nadia district on a complaint by BJP leader Hirak Bhattacharya, accusing Moitra of making provocative remarks capable of hurting religious sentiments and disturbing communal harmony. The FIR was registered under alleged offenses related to promoting social and religious enmity, outraging religious beliefs, and making statements that cause public mischief.
The complaint relates to two videos uploaded by Moitra on Facebook after a group of BJP women workers allegedly gathered outside the Krishnanagar district sessions court carrying eggs and tomatoes, claiming they would throw them at the MP if she appeared in connection with an earlier case.
In the first video, Moitra said she would lodge a police complaint against the women seen outside the court with eggs and, if the police refused to register her complaint, she would approach the courts, including the Supreme Court.
In another video posted the following day, she said she would name all the women in an FIR and allegedly remarked that instead of throwing eggs openly, they should do so while “wearing a burqa” so that no one would recognise them. The videos went viral on social media, prompting the BJP leader to lodge the complaint alleging that her remarks were intended to inflame communal tensions.
Last month, the Calcutta HC granted Moitra interim protection from coercive action on her plea seeking quashing of the FIR but directed her to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the investigating officer on August 14.
Before the Supreme Court, Sankaranarayanan submitted that while Moitra was willing to cooperate with the investigation, she should be permitted to do so through video-conferencing because she apprehended a hostile crowd outside the police station.
When the bench asked why she could not appear physically, counsel said the police station was located in her own constituency and that she feared another mob confrontation.
“I have a legal right under law. The requirement as per the police notice is to be at the police station in my own constituency. Last time I went there, two things happened. First there were threats that eggs would be thrown, and the second time eggs were actually thrown,” Sankaranarayanan submitted.
The bench, however, refused to accept the contention, pointing out that the high court had already directed Moitra to cooperate with the investigation.
“Read paragraph 18 of the impugned order. If you do not appear, then face the music before the High Court. If you are aggrieved thereafter, then come,” the bench observed.
In paragraph 18 of its July 21 order, the high court had given liberty to the state to come back to the court in case Moitra “does not co-operate with the Investigating Agency to take forward the investigation and if she does not obey the notices issued in connection with the aforesaid criminal prosecution.”
To be sure, the impugned high court order had specifically asked the police authorities to ensure that Moitra “shall not be subjected to egg pelting or any other form of harassment.”
