The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the West Bengal government to ensure that Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra receives the necessary cooperation from local authorities and police when visiting her Krishnanagar constituency, urging the state to make appropriate arrangements ahead of the Durga Puja and Diwali festivities.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, that while the state could take time to respond to Moitra’s petition, the MP should not face difficulties in visiting her constituency in the meantime.
“You take your time to respond but if the MP wants to visit her constituency, let there be necessary arrangements,” said the bench, following which Mehta agreed to return on Friday with a statement on the arrangements that could be made.
The court also suggested that a protocol could be put in place for visits by MPs to their constituencies, with the solicitor general agreeing that one should exist. “There can be a kind of protocol when MPs visit,” observed the bench, adding that the upcoming festivities made the issue pressing.
“There must be some protocol. There are 800 MPs after all,” Mehta responded, to which senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, retorted that the difficulties were being faced by only one MP.
{{/usCountry}}“There must be some protocol. There are 800 MPs after all,” Mehta responded, to which senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, retorted that the difficulties were being faced by only one MP.
{{/usCountry}}Mehta sought time to file his response, reiterating the Centre and state’s objection to the maintainability of the petition. The bench, however, made it clear that the question of maintainability would remain open while it considered the immediate concern over Moitra’s visits to her constituency.
“Let this matter be taken up tomorrow,” said Mehta, with the bench agreeing to hear it on Friday.
Moitra, who represents Krishnanagar in the Lok Sabha, moved the Supreme Court seeking guidelines to ensure that MPs receive the cooperation of local authorities and police while visiting their constituencies and carrying out development works under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) scheme.
The plea followed a series of incidents that she alleged had impeded her ability to discharge her responsibilities as an elected representative. One of the key grievances concerned her eviction from the Nadia Circuit House on the night of August 14, when, according to her petition, a large crowd had gathered outside the premises, abusing and threatening her, while her requests for police assistance went unanswered.
The episode was followed by a September 1 communication from the Nadia district administration requiring MPs and MLAs to give advance notice of at least three to four days before seeking accommodation in government guest houses. The letter also stated that such accommodation would depend on the overall situation prevailing at the time.
On October 1, the Supreme Court had sought responses from the West Bengal government and the Centre on Moitra’s plea, expressing concern over the district administration’s requirement that an MP inform it three days in advance before visiting the area and accessing the Circuit House.
At the time, the bench had questioned the rationale for such a requirement, observing that an MP seeking to stay at a Circuit House was being asked to notify the administration three days beforehand.
Moitra’s petition contends that state authorities cannot obstruct an elected representative from performing constituency-related duties or discriminate against a parliamentarian on the basis of political affiliation. It also seeks a framework to ensure that local officials remain impartial while facilitating MPs’ visits and development work.
The state and Centre have challenged the maintainability of the petition, with Mehta previously cautioning that allowing an MP to bring personal grievances directly before the Supreme Court could set a precedent. The court has kept that objection open as it considers the request for interim arrangements.