The Supreme Court on Friday (August 7) refused to entertain a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra seeking permission to join a police investigation through video conferencing in a case related to an allegedly provocative Facebook post. The top court remarked that such pleas should not be brought before it, observing that public representatives cannot shy away from appearing before investigating authorities over fears of protests.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu questioned Moitra’s request to appear virtually before the investigating officer rather than physically visit the police station.
When Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, submitted that his client feared being attacked by a mob if she appeared in person, Justice Datta responded sharply.
“You are a member of Parliament? Having taken the plunge into politics, you fear eggs? When our freedom fighters have taken bullets on their chest? These are applications that should not come before this court at all,” the judge remarked.
Court questions demand for virtual appearance
The case stems from an FIR registered against Moitra in June following a complaint by a BJP leader over remarks allegedly made by the TMC MP in two videos uploaded on social media. The complaint relates to comments made after BJP supporters had allegedly gathered outside a court in Krishnanagar carrying eggs and tomatoes to protest against her.
Referring to the investigation, Sankaranarayanan argued that the case arose from a Facebook post and that Moitra should be allowed to cooperate with the probe through video conferencing.
The Bench, however, questioned the basis of the request.
“Why virtually? Because you are an MP?” the court asked.
The senior advocate maintained that Moitra’s apprehensions were genuine, recalling an earlier incident when eggs were allegedly thrown at her.
“I have a legal right under the law. The requirement as per the police notice is to be at the police station in my own constituency. Last time I went there, two things happened. First, there were threats that eggs would be thrown, etc and second, eggs were actually thrown,” he submitted.
Supreme Court cites Calcutta High Court order
The Supreme Court noted that the Calcutta High Court had already granted Moitra interim protection from coercive action while directing her to cooperate with the investigation.
Pointing to the High Court’s order, the Bench said there was no reason for the Supreme Court to intervene at this stage.
“Read paragraph 19 of the impugned order. You don’t appear. And then face the music before the High Court. If you are aggrieved, then come,” the Bench observed.
Faced with the court’s unwillingness to entertain the plea, Sankaranarayanan sought permission to withdraw the petition.
The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the matter as withdrawn, leaving intact the Calcutta High Court’s direction requiring Moitra to appear before the investigating officer on August 14.
