The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the West Bengal government to ensure that Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra receives the necessary cooperation from local authorities and police when visiting her Krishnanager constituency, urging the state to make appropriate arrangements ahead of the Durga Puja and Diwali festivities. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, that while the state could take time to respond to Moitra’s petition, the MP should not face difficulties in visiting her constituency in the meantime.
The bench stated that the MP should be allowed to make visits with necessary arrangements, prompting Mehta to agree to return with a statement regarding the arrangements that could be established. The court also suggested that a formal protocol should be put in place for visits by MPs to their respective constituencies, an idea the solicitor general agreed should exist, noting the large number of parliamentarians across the country.
Mehta sought time to file his response while reiterating the state and central government objections regarding the maintainability of the petition. The bench made it clear that the question of maintainability would remain open while it considered the immediate concern regarding Moitra’s constituency visits, scheduling further discussions for the following day.
Moitra, who represents Krishnanagar in the Lok Sabha, previously moved the Supreme Court seeking guidelines to guarantee that MPs receive cooperation from local administration and police while carrying out duties and development works under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development scheme. Her plea followed alleged incidents impeding her responsibilities, including an eviction from the Nadia Circuit House in August amidst a hostile crowd, and a subsequent district administration directive requiring lawmakers to provide several days of advance notice for government accommodation.
While the state and Centre have challenged the petition's maintainability on the grounds that personal grievances should not set a direct Supreme Court precedent, the bench continues to weigh interim protective measures for the parliamentarian's local engagements.