Supreme Court Asks Calcutta High Court to Hear Abhishek Banerjee Plea Against Media Trial

The Supreme Court on 3 November asked the Calcutta High Court to consider Trinamool Congress Lok Sabha MP Abhishek Banerjee's plea seeking interim relief against what he describes as a media trial linked to ongoing investigations. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard the matter and permitted Banerjee to mention it for listing immediately after the high court reopens on 16 November following the Durga Puja and Diwali break.

Banerjee had approached the Supreme Court after the Calcutta High Court declined to take up his writ petition on an urgent basis. Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for the MP, told the bench that the petition had been filed in September but the high court had indicated the matter did not fall within its roster. Alam said he had mentioned the case three times and that articles based on investigation details continued to appear daily.

The MP is seeking an order restraining investigating agencies from sharing his personal information with media organisations. He has alleged that selective leaks by the investigating officer in multiple cases have damaged his reputation and risk influencing the probes. The plea also seeks take-down orders for certain published reports. The high court had earlier directed police not to take coercive steps against Banerjee in three criminal cases until 30 November and had barred him from travelling abroad without permission.

The Supreme Court bench noted the high court's reopening date and recorded that Banerjee was at liberty to bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate bench on the first day of reopening. It requested the high court to consider the prayer for interim relief at the earliest. Chief Justice Surya Kant initially observed that the matter did not appear to require a vacation-bench hearing; after Alam requested that observation be deleted, the court agreed.

The case is listed as Abhishek Banerjee versus Union of India and others (SLP(Crl) No. 20945/2026). It sits against the backdrop of several investigations involving the Diamond Harbour MP and ongoing political tensions in West Bengal. Banerjee has separately called for fresh assembly elections in the state, citing discrepancies in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, though that demand is distinct from the media-trial petition decided on Tuesday.

The high court is closed until 16 November. Once it reopens, Banerjee's counsel is expected to mention the matter for urgent listing. Whether the high court grants interim relief restraining further disclosure of investigation details will determine the immediate practical effect of the Supreme Court's direction. The agencies named in the petition have not issued public responses to the allegations of selective leaking.

For the Trinamool Congress leadership the order provides a procedural opening rather than a substantive ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court did not stay any publication or issue any restraint itself. It simply cleared the path for the high court to examine the request once its holiday period ends. Banerjee's side has argued that the presumption of innocence is being eroded by daily reporting that draws on confidential probe material. The investigating agencies, for their part, have not publicly addressed the specific claim of unauthorised disclosure.

The timing coincides with the high court's earlier interim protection against coercive action in three cases until 30 November. That protection remains in force. The media-trial petition seeks a separate and narrower form of relief limited to the flow of information from the agencies to the press. How the Calcutta High Court weighs the competing interests of press freedom and fair-investigation rights when it reconvenes will set the next marker in the litigation.