Calcutta High Court Demands Action Report on Egg-Throwing Incidents Targeting TMC Leaders
The Calcutta High Court has stepped into a politically sensitive controversy involving repeated incidents of eggs being thrown at leaders of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) after the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections. The court has now asked the state government to submit a detailed report covering every such alleged incident along with the status of FIRs filed in these cases.
The matter was being heard by a division bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, following a petition filed by advocate Danish Farooqui on behalf of TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee. The petition raised concerns over alleged targeted attacks and public humiliation of party leaders in multiple locations across the state.
Court seeks accountability from police and administration
During the hearing, the bench expressed concern over the repeated nature of such incidents and questioned whether existing policing measures were sufficient. The judges directed the Kolkata Police Commissioner to prepare clear operational guidelines for all police stations so that similar incidents could be prevented in the future.
Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty stressed the need for a structured approach, noting that without proper guidelines, law enforcement would continue to react rather than prevent such events. He observed, “If the Police Commissioner does not have guidelines in place, such incidents will continue. We will direct the Police Commissioner to frame guidelines for all police stations so that the police can act accordingly.”
The court also emphasized that enforcement alone would not resolve the issue, pointing to the importance of public awareness and preventive measures alongside policing action.
State government defends police action
Representing the West Bengal government, the Additional Advocate General informed the court that the administration did not support or encourage such behaviour. He submitted that police forces were responding wherever complaints were being lodged and that investigations were already underway in several cases.
The state sought two weeks to compile and submit a comprehensive report detailing FIR registrations, investigations, and actions taken against those involved. The government assured the bench that it would place all relevant steps on record.
Allegations of inaction and political tension
On the other side, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the petitioner, strongly criticized the state machinery, alleging that police response was inadequate and delayed. He argued that law enforcement was not acting effectively despite repeated incidents and claimed political encouragement behind such acts.
Banerjee made serious allegations during the hearing, stating, “The police are helping them. They are encouraging mob lynching... We will produce video evidence to establish this.” He also claimed that certain public figures, including a state minister, were allegedly inciting such behaviour, though these claims were not substantiated during the hearing.
He further described incidents where TMC leaders were allegedly surrounded and attacked in public spaces, including outside transport hubs, calling the situation a breakdown of law and order.
Court refuses immediate interim relief
Despite the strong arguments, the bench declined to pass any immediate interim order. Justice Chakraborty clarified that while the court would issue directions to the state, it would not intervene with interim restrictions at this stage of the proceedings.
At the same time, Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee highlighted the broader constitutional concern, stating that protection of fundamental rights must remain central. He observed, “Human rights must be ensured for everyone. There should be no laxity in this regard.”
Next hearing scheduled
Another counsel involved in the case argued that police action was often dependent on formal complaints and that preventive intervention was limited despite the presence of aggressive crowds. However, the court maintained its focus on procedural accountability and systemic improvement.
