The Supreme Court on October 16 directed West Bengal to provide Mahua Moitra Circuit House stay in Nadia district after one day's notice. The court called the previous notice requirement retaliatory. The Chief Justice said, “She will have preferential right to stay, not because she is an MP but because she's representative.”

Market Mastery

Webinar by Vishal Malkan

Find the weak links

in your portfolio by Vishal Malkan

The Supreme Court on Friday (October 16) directed West Bengal authorities to provide Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra with Circuit House accommodation in Nadia district as per protocol after she gives the district administration one day's notice before her visit. The court observed that a letter issued by the Nadia District Magistrate requiring three to four days' prior notice for accommodation “seems retaliatory”.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi modified the September 1 letter, which prescribed the advance notice requirement for Moitra and other MPs and MLAs from the district. The court declined to accept the State's submission that accommodation should be provided only subject to availability, as reported by LiveLaw.

“She will have preferential right to stay, not because she is an MP but because she's representative of that constituency,” the CJI observed.

The court was hearing Moitra's petition concerning her alleged late-night eviction from the Krishnanagar Circuit House in August 2026. The petition also raised concerns over the district administration's alleged lack of cooperation in implementing Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) projects in her constituency.

Why Mahua Moitra approached the Supreme Court

On October 1, the Supreme Court had asked the West Bengal government and other respondents to file their responses to Moitra's plea seeking adequate protection during her visit to Krishnanagar, her parliamentary constituency, for Durga Puja.

The MP had alleged that district administration officials in Nadia had evicted her from the Circuit House despite her having been allotted a room at the state-owned property.

In a social media post on August 14, Moitra claimed that a large crowd had gathered outside the Circuit House and raised “Jai Shri Ram” slogans after she refused to vacate the premises.

She subsequently wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla seeking his intervention and threatened to approach the court over the alleged harassment.

In her letter to the Speaker, Moitra said she had not been informed of any restrictions when she booked the accommodation or when she checked in. She also questioned how a crowd could gather outside the Circuit House, which is located opposite the official residences of the superintendent of police and the district magistrate.

What happened during the hearing

During Friday's hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the West Bengal government, submitted that the Circuit House was undergoing maintenance for the installation of a water iron-removal plant at the time of the incident.

He said no rooms had been allotted to anyone except two rooms occupied by government officers as transit accommodation. Mehta also denied that any official had physically approached Moitra to demand that she vacate the premises, adding that the Additional District Magistrate had called her to discuss shifting to another government guest house.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, argued that the September 1 letter requiring three to four days' prior notice was targeted at the MP. He told the court that she had routinely obtained Circuit House accommodation with just three to four hours' notice over the past decade, first as an MLA and later as an MP.

He further submitted that several government officials were occupying rooms at the Circuit House on the night of the incident, but none had been asked to vacate. According to him, the State's response did not address the allegation that Moitra had been singled out.

Justice Bagchi questioned the rationale behind the district administration's letter, observing that its opening paragraph indicated a retaliatory intent.

“We would like you to withdraw this. She is the member from that district. The first paragraph shows it is a retaliatory letter,” Justice Bagchi said.

Mehta offered to withdraw the letter and proposed that the State formulate a standard operating procedure (SOP) applicable to all legislators.

CJI Surya Kant observed that such disputes should not ordinarily require the Supreme Court's intervention, adding that a simple procedure for accommodation requests would suffice. He said that while sudden visits by elected representatives could create administrative difficulties, requiring a week's or ten days' notice was unnecessary. He suggested that eight hours' notice or a day's notice would be sufficient, with a designated nodal officer coordinating arrangements.

Sankaranarayanan agreed that Moitra would inform the district administration a day before her visit. However, Mehta maintained that accommodation should be subject to availability, arguing that rooms could not be reserved for any particular functionary.

The bench declined to accept the State's request to make accommodation subject to availability. It directed that, after Moitra informs the district administration a day before her visit, the necessary Circuit House accommodation be provided in accordance with protocol.