New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s plea seeking permission to appear virtually before the investigating officer in a case relating to her alleged violence-inciting public statements.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu questioned the basis of Moitra’s request to appear through video-conferencing and indicated that she would have to cooperate with the investigation in person.
As senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, submitted that she had no objection to joining the investigation but sought permission to do so virtually, the Justice Datta-led Bench asked: “Why virtually? Because you are an MP?”
The senior counsel submitted that Moitra apprehended a mob attack if she appeared physically before the police and referred to an earlier incident in which eggs were allegedly thrown at her.
However, the apex court was apparently not persuaded by the submission. “You are a Member of Parliament? Having taken the plunge into politics, you fear eggs? When our freedom fighters have taken bullets on their chest? These are applications that should not come before this court at all,” the Justice Datta-led Bench orally remarked.
Following the top court’s remarks, Sankaranarayanan sought permission to withdraw the petition.
The apex court accordingly dismissed the plea as withdrawn.
Moitra had approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to appear before the investigating officer through video-conferencing instead of appearing physically at the police station.
Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had granted interim protection from coercive police action, including arrest, to the two-time Trinamool MP from Krishnanagar in a case in which she has been accused of making violence-inciting public statements.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Sougata Bhattacharya had granted the interim protection till October 5, while making it conditional upon Moitra extending full cooperation with the investigation.
The High Court had observed that although the police could continue with the investigation, no coercive action could be taken against Moitra during the period of protection, subject to her cooperation with the probe.
During the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court, the state government had submitted that Moitra had been served notices on four occasions but did not appear for interrogation, citing her parliamentary engagements.
Moitra’s counsel had then argued that she should be permitted to participate in the interrogation virtually, particularly in view of apprehensions of an unpleasant situation at the police station. The Calcutta High Court had observed that the police should ensure that no such situation arose when Moitra appeared for questioning.
(IANS)
