Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection to Abhishek Banerjee in FIR Over Remarks Against Amit Shah

The Calcutta High Court on 21 May 2026 granted interim protection to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, restraining the West Bengal Police from taking any coercive action against him until 31 July 2026 in connection with an FIR registered over his alleged remarks against Union Home Minister Amit Shah during the 2026 West Bengal Assembly election campaign. The Court, however, also pulled up Banerjee for making what it described as irresponsible and inflammatory speeches, observing that provocative remarks by a sitting lawmaker strike the conscience of the court.

Background of the FIR and Election Rally Remarks

The FIR was lodged based on a complaint filed by social activist Rajib Sarkar at Baguiati police station under the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate in North 24 Parganas district on 5 May 2026. The FIR was formally registered at the Cyber Crime police station under the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate on 15 May 2026. The complaint alleged that Banerjee made provocative speeches during election rallies held between 27 April and 3 May 2026, during the West Bengal Assembly election campaign. The rallies took place in the run-up to the two-phase elections held on 23 and 29 April 2026. Media reports indicate that Banerjee's speeches included references to Home Minister Amit Shah using language that the complainant characterised as objectionable and threatening.

Calcutta High Court Order: Protection with Conditions

While granting interim protection, the Calcutta High Court imposed several conditions on Banerjee. He cannot travel without prior permission from the investigating officer and must inform the IO at least 48 hours before any movement. The Court made it clear that the protection is interim in nature and subject to Banerjee's compliance with the conditions imposed. The single-judge bench hearing the matter observed that such provocative speeches by a sitting lawmaker are uncalled for and that while the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) is fundamental, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), particularly regarding public order and incitement to an offence. Banerjee had moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR, and the Court has listed the matter for further hearing.

Legal Framework for Election Speech and Criminal Liability

Political speeches during elections occupy a complex space in Indian criminal law. Sections 196 and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deal with promoting enmity between groups and making statements conducive to public mischief, respectively. Section 353 of the BNS covers statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, under Section 123(3A), treats the promotion of feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes in connection with an election as a corrupt practice. The Election Commission of India has the power under the Model Code of Conduct to act against candidates making inflammatory speeches, though its enforcement is often debated. The courts have generally held that while political speech enjoys heightened protection, it does not extend to direct incitement to violence or speech that creates an imminent threat to public order.

Key Takeaways

The Calcutta High Court order reflects a balanced approach, providing interim protection from arrest while making clear that the Court disapproves of inflammatory election rhetoric. Sitting lawmakers and public figures face heightened scrutiny when making speeches during elections, and the protection of Article 19(1)(a) does not extend to speech that crosses the line into incitement or threatening language. Interim protection from arrest is distinct from quashing of the FIR, and the substantive question of whether the FIR should be quashed will be decided in due course. The case is being watched closely in the context of the broader political dynamics in West Bengal following the 2026 Assembly elections, where the BJP won the state for the first time. Similar FIRs against political leaders for election speeches are common across Indian states, and the courts have developed a nuanced jurisprudence balancing free speech with public order considerations.