New Delhi, August 7, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s plea seeking permission to appear virtually before the investigating officer in a case related to her alleged violence-inciting public statements.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu questioned the basis of Moitra’s request for video-conferencing appearance and indicated that she would have to cooperate with the investigation in person.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, submitted that the MP had no objection to joining the probe but wanted permission to participate virtually. The Bench questioned the request, asking, “Why virtually? Because you are an MP?”
The counsel submitted that Moitra feared a possible mob attack if she appeared physically before the police, referring to an earlier incident in which eggs were allegedly thrown at her.
The Supreme Court, however, did not accept the argument. The Bench orally observed that entering public life involved facing challenges and remarked that freedom fighters had faced bullets while fighting for the country.
Following the court’s observations, Sankaranarayanan sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
Moitra had approached the apex court seeking permission to appear before the investigating officer through video-conferencing instead of visiting the police station physically.
Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had granted interim protection to the two-time Trinamool Congress MP from Krishnanagar against coercive police action, including arrest, in the case involving allegations of making statements that could incite violence.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Sougata Bhattacharya granted protection until October 5, subject to Moitra extending full cooperation with the investigation.
The High Court had clarified that while the police could continue their probe, no coercive action could be taken against Moitra during the period of protection if she cooperated with the investigation.
During the proceedings before the High Court, the state government informed the court that Moitra had been issued notices on four occasions but had not appeared for questioning, citing her parliamentary commitments.
Moitra’s counsel had argued that she should be allowed to participate in interrogation virtually due to concerns over a possible unpleasant situation at the police station. The High Court had then directed that authorities ensure no such situation arose when she appeared for questioning.
FOLLOW NOW
