The Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim protection from coercive action to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee in connection with the ongoing signature forgery case, a politically sensitive controversy that has emerged amid an unprecedented internal conflict within the former ruling party. While providing temporary relief to the TMC leader, the court also directed him to appear before the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) later in the day and cooperate fully with the investigation.
Justice Kausik Chanda, while hearing the matter, instructed Abhishek Banerjee to present himself at the CID headquarters in Kolkata by 6 pm on Thursday. Banerjee, who had been in Delhi since the weekend, was directed to participate in the questioning process and extend complete cooperation to investigators examining the allegations. The court emphasised that his appearance before the CID was necessary for the investigation to proceed without obstruction.
At the same time, the High Court provided significant relief to the TMC MP by ordering that no coercive action be taken against him for a period of three weeks. The court further clarified that after participating in the interrogation process, Banerjee would be free to leave and would not be detained by investigators. This arrangement effectively allowed the CID investigation to continue while protecting the parliamentarian from immediate arrest or other coercive measures.
The court also scheduled the matter for further consideration after two weeks. By that time, the CID had been instructed to submit a detailed status report outlining the progress of the investigation and any findings that emerged from its ongoing inquiry into the alleged forgery.
The case revolves around allegations that the signatures of several Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) were forged on documents connected to the selection of the Leader of Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly. The controversy has generated considerable political attention because of its implications for party functioning and internal decision-making processes.
At the centre of the dispute is a meeting that was allegedly convened by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee at her Kalighat residence. According to documents submitted as part of the process for selecting the Leader of Opposition, discussions regarding the opposition post took place during that meeting. However, complaints later emerged alleging that several MLAs whose signatures appeared on the resolution neither attended the meeting nor signed the document in question.
During Thursday's hearing, Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar, appearing on behalf of the state government, strongly opposed Abhishek Banerjee's plea for protection. He argued before the court that the CID had issued multiple notices to Banerjee and that investigators required his cooperation in order to examine his role in the matter thoroughly.
Justice Chanda, however, questioned the state's opposition to granting temporary relief. Observing that Banerjee had expressed his willingness to appear before investigators, the judge asked why protection should be denied when the individual concerned was already undertaking to cooperate with the probe.
The state further argued that there were serious inconsistencies and discrepancies regarding the dates associated with the alleged meeting and the signing of the resolution. According to the submissions made by the state, the sequence of events described in official records appeared contradictory and raised important questions about the authenticity of the documents.
Majumdar informed the court that the resolution indicated that MLAs had signed the document on May 6. However, he pointed out that Abhishek Banerjee's communication regarding the matter was sent to the Assembly Speaker on May 9. The situation became even more complicated when, according to the state, Banerjee later informed the Speaker that a meeting had actually been held on May 19, during which the MLAs signed the resolution.
The state maintained that these conflicting timelines cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process and strengthened the need for a thorough investigation. According to the prosecution, several MLAs had already stated that no meeting took place on May 6 and that they had not signed any resolution on that date.
Majumdar also argued that investigators were examining whether Banerjee's role in the matter extended beyond that of a witness. He submitted that the CID was assessing the possibility that the TMC MP could be treated as an accused in the case, particularly because he allegedly did not possess the original copy of the disputed resolution.
According to the state's submissions, the absence of the original document raised additional questions that investigators were attempting to resolve. Majumdar told the court that the CID was considering whether custodial interrogation might eventually become necessary, given the nature of the allegations and the issues surrounding the original records.
Appearing for Abhishek Banerjee, senior advocate Ayan Bhattacharya strongly opposed the state's arguments. He contended that the purpose of the notice issued by the CID was to facilitate questioning and gather information rather than justify immediate arrest or custodial action. Bhattacharya argued that there was no valid reason to assume that interrogation automatically required detention.
Questioning the state's approach, he asked what rationale existed for taking Banerjee into custody when the stated objective of the notice was merely to conduct an interrogation. He maintained that his client was willing to cooperate with investigators and that there was no justification for treating him as though he had already been found guilty of any wrongdoing.
Bhattacharya also argued that procedural irregularities, inconsistencies in documentation, or even the possibility of backdated signatures did not automatically amount to the criminal offence of forgery. He suggested that the investigation should focus on establishing facts rather than prematurely drawing conclusions about criminal intent.
Throughout the hearing, the court appeared inclined to strike a balance between ensuring that the investigation continued unhindered and protecting the rights of the individual being questioned. Justice Chanda repeatedly emphasised that the probe should proceed while also ensuring that due process was followed.
At one stage, the judge remarked that there should indeed be an investigation, particularly since the disputed resolution had already been submitted and formed part of the official record. His comments suggested that the court viewed the inquiry as necessary while remaining cautious about allowing coercive measures before sufficient evidence had been examined.
The High Court's order came against the backdrop of intensified investigative activity by the CID in recent days. On Tuesday, CID officials simultaneously visited the TMC supremo's office on Camac Street and Mamata Banerjee's residence in Kalighat, which also houses one of the party's registered offices, in connection with the probe.
These visits were carried out as part of efforts to serve notices and gather information relevant to the investigation. The CID is particularly focused on examining the authenticity of the disputed resolution and the associated meeting records that were later submitted to the Assembly Speaker.
Investigators are scrutinising whether the signatures appearing on those documents are genuine and whether any forgery or misrepresentation occurred during the preparation and submission of the records. The resolution and related documents had been attached to a letter signed by Abhishek Banerjee and sent to the Assembly Speaker, making them central to the investigation.
Before the court hearing, Banerjee had sought additional time to appear before the CID. His legal team informed the High Court that he was scheduled to arrive in Kolkata at approximately 4 pm on Thursday after returning from Delhi. The court took note of this submission and directed him to appear before investigators later the same evening.
With the High Court granting interim protection while simultaneously directing cooperation with investigators, the case now moves into its next phase. The CID has been allowed to continue its probe, Banerjee has been protected from immediate coercive action, and the court will review the investigation's progress after receiving a detailed report in the coming weeks. The outcome of the inquiry is likely to remain closely watched given its legal, political, and organisational implications within West Bengal's political landscape.
