Archive · 2 Oct 2026
Calcutta High Court Extends Mahua Moitra Security Protection
Mahua Moitra is a Member of Parliament from Krishnanagar.
The Calcutta High Court said armed police must protect her in her constituency until November 30.
This followed an incident in which people shouted at her and threw eggs.
Moitra says the police did not do enough to stop it.
Her complaint will now be heard together with similar cases by a larger court bench.
In another case, she is protected from arrest or other forceful action until January 29.
She still has to answer investigators’ questions.
The Supreme Court also asked the Bengal government to respond to her complaint about access to a local development fund for MPs.
The Calcutta High Court extended Mahua Moitra’s armed security cover in Krishnanagar until November 30.
The court transferred her petition alleging police inaction during an egg attack to the Chief Justice’s division bench.
Moitra’s interim protection from coercive action in a case over alleged communal remarks was extended until January 29.
The court said Moitra must cooperate with the investigation while no coercive steps may be taken against her.
The Supreme Court sought Bengal’s response to Moitra’s allegation that she was being prevented from using MPLADS.
- Who
- Mahua Moitra, Krishnanagar MP; the Calcutta High Court; and the Supreme Court of India.
- What
- The High Court extended Moitra’s security and interim legal protection, transferred her police-inaction petition, and the Supreme Court sought Bengal’s response on her MPLADS allegation.
- When
- The directives were issued on Thursday; security protection runs until November 30, and interim protection from coercive action until January 29.
- Where
- The matters concern Krishnanagar, including Tehatta and Hogalberia, in West Bengal, and were heard in the Calcutta High Court and Supreme Court.
- Why
- The security order followed an egg-throwing incident and alleged police inaction; the separate legal protection concerns an FIR over alleged communal remarks, while the Supreme Court matter concerns alleged restrictions on MPLADS work.
Moitra’s position
Government and opposing position
Security and police response
Moitra’s position
Moitra alleged that police failed to act during the September 16 egg attack and sought court intervention and continued protection.
Government and opposing position
The state pointed to existing administrative and security measures; the High Court ordered her petition to be heard with related cases.
Protection in communal-remarks case
Moitra’s position
Moitra sought continued protection from coercive action while the FIR investigation proceeds.
Government and opposing position
The state said she had appeared before the investigating officer; it maintained that the investigation should continue and that she must cooperate.
MPLADS access
Moitra’s position
Moitra alleged that the BJP was preventing her from undertaking her Member of Parliament Local Area Development Schemes.
Government and opposing position
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta objected to the petition being entertained, warning that doing so could prompt 500 other MPs to seek similar relief; the Supreme Court nevertheless sought Bengal’s response.
- Security cover
- At least two armed personnel must be deputed during Moitra’s entry into or travel through Krishnanagar constituency.
- Security deadline
- The extended armed security arrangement remains operational until November 30.
- Egg attack
- A crowd shouted “go back” and threw eggs at Moitra during her September 16 visit to Tehatta.
- Petition transfer
- Her police-inaction petition was transferred to the Chief Justice’s division bench for consolidated disposal.
- Interim protection
- Protection from coercive action in the Hogalberia FIR was extended until January 29.
- Investigation
- The state reported that Moitra appeared before the investigating officer on August 14 and answered questions.
- Supreme Court matter
- The Bengal government was given one week to respond to Moitra’s MPLADS-related petition.