New Delhi, Oct 16 The Supreme Court on Friday told TMC MP Mahua Moitra to inform the Nadia district administration a day prior to her visit there to enable them to make necessary arrangements including for accommodation according to protocol.
The apex court passed the order while hearing Moitra's plea which flagged the issue concerning a September 1 circular of the district administration which asked MPs and MLAs to give prior notice of at least three to four days before their proposed visit to enable the administration to make appropriate arrangements.
"These are not the issues which should come to the court. What is required is a small SOP (Standard operating procedure)," a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed during the hearing.
In her plea, Moitra, who is an MP from Krishnanagar parliamentary constituency in West Bengal, had alleged that district administration officials in Nadia had evicted her from a Circuit House in August even though she was allotted a room at the state-owned property.
During the hearing on Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the West Bengal government, told the bench that no officer had asked Moitra to vacate the premises and all courtesies were extended to her.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the MP, said the September 1 circular was targeted at Moitra.
He said according to protocol, an MP ranks higher than the chief secretary.
"We would like this to be ironed out. There should not be any inconvenience to anyone," the bench said.
Mehta said the September 1 circular would not be given effect to.
The bench told Sankaranarayanan that Moitra's office should inform the district administration a day prior to her visit.
When Moitra's counsel said allotment of rooms at the Circuit House should be according to protocol, Mehta argued that it should be subject to availability also.
"You can't weaponise availability like this," Sankaranarayanan said.
The bench also dealt with Moitra's submission about alleged lack of cooperation by the district administration for giving effect to MPLADS (Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme).
Sankaranarayanan argued that after May 2026, the district administration was not cooperating and 18 projects were stalled.
Mehta said these are not the issues which an MP should bring before the court.
"If you are doing multiple things to make it difficult for me to function as an elected representative, the court must step in," Moitra's counsel said, adding, "I am being singled out."
Mehta responded, "Your political problems can't be solved in an Article 32 petition before this court."
The bench noted that so far as the alleged non-cooperation of the district administration was concerned, Moitra has already approached the concerned authorities.
The apex court observed that the authorities would adequately deal with the issue.
The bench said if the petitioner is still aggrieved after that, she may approach the jurisdictional high court.
On the night of August 14, Moitra claimed in a social media post that a large crowd had gathered outside the Circuit House, raising "Jai Shri Ram" slogans after she refused to leave the premises.
She wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, seeking his intervention in the matter.
The Krishnanagar MP had also threatened to move court over the alleged harassment.
She claimed in her letter to Birla that nobody had conveyed anything to her when she made the booking and no one had informed her about the booking embargo when she checked in.
The MP said the premises, opposite the bungalows of both the superintendent of police and the district magistrate, are supposed to be secure where no crowd can gather, let alone a lynch mob.
