Calcutta HC bans coercive action on 3 FIR’s against Abhishek Banerjee
The Calcutta High Court on August 25, 2026, ordered the West Bengal Police to not take any coercive action against Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee in relation to the three criminal cases until further order. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya said that it was not necessary to conduct custodial interrogation of the TMC leader now and granted protection till November 30, 2026, or further order.
The three FIRs have been filed with Bhawanipore Police Station, Kalitala Ashuti Police Station and Bishnupur Police Station. Banerjee had been coming to the High Court for protection and to have several FIRs filed against him quashed, claiming that several cases had been lodged against him out of political animosity since the change of the government in West Bengal. The Court however restricted the current order to the three FIRs mentioned in his petition.
Generally, the phrase no coercive action” means that the investigating agency shall not institute any action of coercion against the protected person during the term of the judicial order, except with the permission of, or in the absence of, any modification or rescission by the Court in the order. Importantly, the order is not an acquittal, nor does it end the criminal investigation.
The High Court had also issued directions to Banerjee that he must co-operate with the probe and follow the instructions given by the police. At least 48 hours in advance shall be given to him by the investigating agency when he shall be required to appear before them for interrogation. In case Banerjee does not cooperate, the State can petition the Court for modification or vacation of the protection.
The Court also asked the police to produce a progress report on the probe when it is heard on November 23. This will prevent interim protection being used to indefinitely stop investigation.
The order is important in the light of freedom of person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has invariably reiterated that arrest ought not to be the automatic consequence of being charged with a cognizable offence.
The statute now mainly regulates the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Section 35(3) BNSS offers a provision for issuing a notice if arrest is not necessary under the circumstances provided by law. In a set of proceedings before the Calcutta High Court, the provision had been used earlier to provide Banerjee protection.
The case of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) is very relevant. The Court warned police authorities of unnecessary arrests and recalled that arrest must be met by the need for investigation and the conditions of the law regarding the arrest.
Meanwhile, immunity from arrest should not be taken as immunity from investigation. Where the Court so requires an accused is legally bound to cooperate.
The Court also noted that Banerjee doesn’t have to file a separate petition for each FIR in which the issues arise from the same set of circumstances. The Court stated that multiplicity of litigation may occur if separate action is taken in each case.
The Court, however, did not wish to automatically extend the same order to all FIRs which are allegedly pending against Banerjee. His counsel had even submitted that at this stage he could have gone to consider as many as 16 FIRs, but the Court was of the opinion that the three FIRs for which particulars had been mentioned in the present petition only could be considered at this stage.
The order shows how ingeniously a court has to balance an individual’s right to personal liberty and the State’s right to investigate alleged offences. Granting interim protection does not mean that the allegations have been found false. Also, an FIR does not prove the guilt of the person.
The case will be reviewed again on November 23, when the progress report on the investigation is anticipated. In the meantime, Banerjee can stay away from coercive action in the three instances, provided he co-operates with the investigation.
The ruling, therefore, upholds a basic rule of criminal law: Investigation should be permitted, but personal liberty is not to be deprived mechanically where custodial interrogation is not found to be necessary.
