Why no security review in 6 months? HC asks Bengal on Abhishek Banerjee's Z+ cover

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday questioned the West Bengal government's decision to downgrade Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee's security cover from Z-plus to the lowest X category, asking why the state had failed to convene a review meeting for six months despite repeated reports of attacks on him.

Justice Krishna Rao also sought an explanation for the delay in reassessing the Diamond Harbour MP's threat perception before reserving his verdict on Banerjee's petition challenging the withdrawal of his security cover.

During the hearing, Justice Rao questioned why the state had waited for the scheduled six-monthly review instead of convening an interim meeting after receiving representations about alleged attacks on Banerjee.

"He applied six months ago. You couldn't call a review meeting in all this time? Why did you wait so long?" the judge asked the state government.

The court also sought clarity on the timeline of the decision, pointing out that Banerjee's Z-plus security was withdrawn on May 12, three days after the new government assumed office on May 9, while the recommendation to downgrade his protection was made only on May 29.

"The Z-plus security was withdrawn from May 12. The recommendation to downgrade his security was made on May 29. So, from when exactly was Abhishek's security withdrawn?" Justice Rao asked.

Representing the state, Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya said the police had assessed the threat perception and found no significant threat warranting Z-plus security. He maintained that security arrangements were subject to periodic evaluation and that the next review meeting was scheduled for November.

Bhattacharya also argued that Z-plus protection involved substantial expenditure, costing approximately Rs 50 lakh per month for an individual. He said no threat from militant groups or intelligence inputs had been identified to justify the higher security category.

However, the court questioned whether the authorities had considered the subsequent incidents cited by Banerjee and whether there was any provision preventing an interim security review before the scheduled six-monthly assessment.

"There have been multiple attacks on him," Justice Rao observed, rejecting the state's contention that the absence of a specific threat assessment justified the downgrade.

Appearing for Banerjee, senior advocate Shoaib Alam alleged that the MP and his family had faced six attacks since his security cover was downgraded. He argued that the decision was politically motivated and taken without a proper meeting of the authorised security review committee.

Alam submitted that Banerjee had been receiving Z-category security since 2016, following arrangements that were first made in 2013. He said the protection was subsequently downgraded to X category, despite repeated representations seeking its restoration.

Referring to the incidents cited in court, Alam said Banerjee had faced an attack outside his residence at around 2 am on his birthday, when a group of 40-50 people allegedly armed with sticks attacked him.

He also referred to an incident in June, when a man entered the airport carrying a revolver, and the violence at a party office in Diamond Harbour twice in July. Another incident was reported on Camac Street in September.

"There is a spate of violence after the new government came. There are statistics and news reports to show this. I don't want a political assassination to take place," Alam told the court.

He also argued that security assessments should take into account threat perception, intelligence inputs and recommendations from the protecting unit, alleging that these factors had not been adequately examined before Banerjee's protection was downgraded.

Meanwhile, the government sought contempt proceedings over Abhishek's remarks a section of the judiciary after his plea seeking enhanced security was not taken up during the Puja vacation.

Banerjee had alleged that he was repeatedly forced to approach different benches of the High Court and the Supreme Court for relief, while another case involving the Adani Group was listed and heard by the High Court's Puja vacation bench within a day. He had also accused some judges of having "sold their spines to the BJP".

The state sought criminal contempt proceedings against the MP, arguing that his remarks cast aspersions on the judiciary.

Responding to the submissions, Justice Rao remarked, "Ask your client (Abhishek) to provide a list specifying which judges are BJP supporters and which ones are not."

Alam said the circumstances in which such remarks were made were known to the judges and that the court could decide how to deal with them. He maintained that the controversy over Banerjee's statements should not affect the security-related proceedings.

The Centre's Additional Solicitor General, Dhiraj Trivedi, also raised concerns over the remarks, saying the impartiality of judges was being questioned and the allegations were being widely circulated on social media. He questioned why Banerjee had not approached the vacation bench during the month-long Puja vacation.

After hearing arguments from Banerjee, the state and the Centre, Justice Krishna Rao reserved his verdict on the petition.- Ends

Tapas Sengupta is a senior investigative journalist based in Kolkata, also reports actively on socio-political issues, human rights violations, and conflict  across India. He is a Defence Correspondent and having experience of covering major conflicts across all the borders of India since last 17 years. He is an experienced broadcast journalist