The Supreme Court on Friday directed MP Mahua Moitra to give the Nadia district administration one-day notice before visiting. The court heard her plea against a September 1 circular requiring longer notice. “These are not the issues which should come to the court,” the bench observed while resolving the matter.
The Supreme Court on Friday directed Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra to inform the Nadia district administration a day before visiting the district so that necessary arrangements, including accommodation according to protocol, can be made, news agency Press Trust of India reported.
The court issued the direction while hearing Moitra's plea against a September 1 circular that required MPs and MLAs to give the district administration at least three to four days' notice before a proposed visit.
“These are not the issues which should come to the court. What is required is a small SOP (standard operating procedure),” a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed.
Moitra, the MP from West Bengal's Krishnanagar constituency, alleged in her plea that Nadia district administration officials had evicted her from a Circuit House in August despite a room being allotted to her at the state-owned property.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the West Bengal government, told the bench that no officer had asked Moitra to vacate the premises and that all courtesies had been extended to her, according to PTI. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Moitra, said the September 1 circular was targeted at her. He also said that, according to protocol, an MP ranks higher than the chief secretary.
“We would like this to be ironed out. There should not be any inconvenience to anyone,” the bench said. Mehta told the court that the September 1 circular would not be enforced.
The bench directed Moitra's office to inform the district administration a day before her visit. When her counsel said rooms at the Circuit House should be allotted according to protocol, Mehta argued that allotment should also be subject to availability. “You can't weaponise availability like this,” Sankaranarayanan said.
The court also considered Moitra's allegation that the district administration had not cooperated in implementing projects under the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme. Sankaranarayanan said the administration had not cooperated after May 2026 and that 18 projects had stalled.
Mehta said these were not issues that an MP should bring before the court. “If you are doing multiple things to make it difficult for me to function as an elected representative, the court must step in,” Moitra's counsel said, adding, “I am being singled out.” Mehta responded, “Your political problems can't be solved in an Article 32 petition before this court.”
The bench noted that Moitra had already approached the authorities over the alleged lack of cooperation. It said the authorities would adequately deal with the matter and that she could approach the relevant high court if she remained aggrieved.
In a social media post, Moitra claimed that a large crowd had gathered outside the Circuit House on the night of August 14 and raised “Jai Shri Ram” slogans after she refused to leave. She wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking his intervention and also threatened to move court over the alleged harassment.
In her letter to Birla, Moitra said nobody had informed her of any restriction when she booked the room or checked in. She said the premises, located opposite the bungalows of the superintendent of police and the district magistrate, were supposed to be secure and that no crowd, “let alone a lynch mob”, should have been able to gather there.
The Supreme Court has now asked Moitra to give the district administration one day's notice before her visits, while leaving the authorities to address her concerns over stalled development projects and allowing her to approach the relevant high court if the issue remains unresolved.