Kolkata, Sep 1 The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday directed the West Bengal Police to provide two personnel to accompany TMC MP Mahua Moitra during her visits to her constituency for the next 30 days, saying the security cover was necessary to ensure she could perform her duties as an elected representative amid allegations of mob harassment.
The order was passed by Justice Saugata Bhattacharya on a day Moitra faced yet another protest, this time during a visit to Chapra in her Krishnanagar constituency in Nadia district, with a group of people allegedly surrounding her vehicle, waving black flags and raising 'go back' slogans.
The court directed the state to deploy two police personnel with Moitra whenever she entered her constituency, subject to prior intimation regarding her travel and duration of stay, to prevent harassment and enable her to discharge her duties as an MP.
"The petitioner, a woman MP, has been subjected to egg-pelting and other forms of harassment… The SP of Krishnanagar police district is directed to provide protection to the petitioner by providing two police personnel whenever she enters her constituency to avoid harassment," the court ordered.
The protection will remain in force for 30 days, following which the state was directed to place a further report before the court. The matter was listed for next hearing on October 1.
The court heard a plea concerning alleged incidents of regular mob disturbance and harassment faced by Moitra during visits to her constituency.
Appearing for the MP, senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, submitted that Moitra was unable to freely visit her constituency and discharge her parliamentary duties.
"As a result of deliberate failure of law and order as well as of intelligence on part of the police, (Moitra) was subjected to premeditated mob attack at Kaliganj, Nadia, involving pelting of eggs, potatoes, tomatoes and stones; wrongful confinement and complete police inaction despite real time alerts," Bandyopadhyay submitted, referring to an incident that took place on July 1.
"If this goes on day in and day out, how can she discharge her duties as an MP, which requires her to visit her constituency?" he added.
Seeking protection for the MP, Bandopadhyay also referred to an incident involving Moitra's stay at the Krishnanagar Circuit House allotted to her, claiming that the allotment was cancelled around 10.30 pm when a group of BJP workers was allegedly present outside and there was no police presence.
"Will we remain in such an unruly state of affairs? For so long as I am an MP, I will discharge my duties," Bandopadhyay submitted.
He referred to a Facebook Live recorded by Moitra purportedly showing the incidents of the said evening and added the details had been communicated to the officer-in-charge of the local police station.
The senior counsel submitted that Moitra had also informed the director general of police through WhatsApp while the incident was taking place, but the police response came only after around three hours.
"Where are we?" the senior counsel asked.
Bandopadhyay also relied on a June 2026 order passed in a public interest litigation concerning incidents of egg-pelting, submitting that the court had recognised human dignity as a constitutional guarantee and held that the state had an obligatory responsibility to protect all people.
He said directions had been issued to the DGP in that matter, but "on the very next day", the said incident had occurred.
"If an MP is subjected to egg-pelting and other harassment while she enters into her constituency, what will happen to other political persons who show allegiance to rival parties?" the court asked.
Bandopadhyay referred to an earlier order emphasising that while "no one is above the law, the flipside of the maxim is no person is below the law either."
He stressed that protection was essential to enable Moitra to move freely in her constituency.
"If this is happening to a woman, a woman MP, imagine the plight of the others," he submitted, describing the situation as "unbelievable."
Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumdar, appearing for the state, submitted that the writ petition had been filed and Moitra had lodged complaints regarding the incidents.
"Adequate steps had been taken and FIRs were registered with respect to all three complaints lodged by the MP," he said, while pointing out that the last incident referred to in her petition took place on July 2.
"I have to take instructions on whether Moitra had subsequently visited the constituency and faced any further harassment," he added.
The court observed that an arrangement could be made for a limited period to provide police protection whenever Moitra entered her constituency.
"She is already protected as an MP," the AAG argued.
The court, however, questioned the submission in view of the alleged incidents.
"If she is protected, then how did these incidents take place for which police had to register an FIR? Which prima facie goes to show that there are incidents affecting her security," the court observed.
The court subsequently clarified that although personal security officers were already available to Moitra, additional personnel should be deployed so that "these obnoxious incidents" did not occur.
Bandopadhyay disputed the state's assertion that adequate protection was already being provided and urged it to file an affidavit.
He submitted that Moitra had recently gone to a police station in connection with a case, but around 1,000 people were allegedly present outside, in a bid to prevent her entry.
"The state must deal with (it) with an iron hand, or it will be out of your control," the court observed.
