Calcutta HC: Warns of Blanket FIR Order for Abhishek Banerjee

• The Calcutta High Court protected TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee from coercive action in three new FIRs related to Sevashray medical camps.
• Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya warned the State of a potential blanket injunction against future FIRs without court permission due to repeated filings.
• The judge expressed frustration over the continuous registration of cases, stating he had been hearing such matters since May 2026.
• The court referenced a similar protective order previously issued for West Bengal BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari as a precedent.
• This development signals judicial concern over the potential misuse of the FIR process, particularly in political contexts.

The court's strong stance emerged from a growing apprehension regarding the continuous registration of cases against Mr. Banerjee, which Justice Bhattacharyya described as becoming a matter of serious concern.

The Calcutta High Court recently intervened to safeguard All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee, who also serves as the Member of Parliament for Diamond Harbour, from potential coercive measures related to three additional First Information Reports (FIRs). These complaints are linked to allegations concerning Sevashray medical camps. During a hearing on Monday, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya expressed significant concern over the State government's pattern of registering multiple FIRs against the prominent political figure.

Justice Bhattacharyya issued a stern warning, indicating the court's readiness to impose a blanket injunction that would prohibit the registration of any further FIRs against Mr. Banerjee without explicit judicial permission. This potential `Calcutta HC blanket FIR order Abhishek Banerjee` would be considered if the State continues to file complaints in a similar, repetitive manner. The judge questioned the delay in addressing this recurring issue, noting that "every day issues coming one after another based on one complaint and another," and declared that if this trend persists, a comprehensive protective order would be issued.

The court's strong stance emerged from a growing apprehension regarding the continuous registration of cases against Mr. Banerjee, which Justice Bhattacharyya described as becoming a matter of serious concern. The proceedings, formally titled `Abhishek Banerjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.`, highlight a judicial pushback against what appears to be a systematic approach to filing criminal complaints. The judge explicitly stated his frustration, remarking that he had been hearing these matters since May 2026 and had reached a point of exasperation.

This judicial sentiment underscores a broader concern about the `misuse of FIR process India`, particularly in cases involving political figures. The court's observation that "enough is enough" reflects a perceived pattern of vexatious litigation, prompting the judiciary to consider extraordinary measures to ensure fair process and prevent harassment through legal channels. The judge's remarks signal a potential shift towards greater judicial oversight in the initiation of criminal proceedings against individuals facing a barrage of complaints.

In contemplating a blanket injunction, Justice Bhattacharyya explicitly referenced a previous order issued by a coordinate bench of the Calcutta High Court. This earlier ruling provided similar `protection from coercive action India` to West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari, restricting the registration of further FIRs against him without the court's leave. This `Suvendu Adhikari FIR precedent` serves as a direct model for the potential order concerning Abhishek Banerjee, suggesting a consistent judicial approach to serial complaints against political adversaries.

The potential `Calcutta High Court FIR injunction` against further complaints without judicial consent carries significant implications for `West Bengal political FIRs`. It signals a judicial willingness to intervene proactively against what might be perceived as politically motivated or harassing criminal complaints. Such a development could establish an important legal benchmark, offering a mechanism for individuals, especially those in public life, to seek comprehensive protection from an unending stream of potentially vexatious criminal proceedings, thereby reinforcing the principle of due process against the backdrop of persistent legal challenges.

Lawyers representing individuals facing multiple, potentially vexatious, criminal complaints should closely monitor this development. The Calcutta High Court's warning signals a judicial willingness to intervene against the misuse of the FIR process, potentially establishing a precedent for seeking blanket protective orders against serial FIRs in India.

Source: Original reporting via scraped article