Abhishek Banerjee seeks more time from CID in MLA signature forgery case
Synopsis
Trinamool Congress general secretary Abhishek Banerjee has now missed two consecutive CID appearances in the West Bengal MLA signature forgery case, instead flying to New Delhi for an INDIA bloc meeting and sending a written request for more time. With a Calcutta High Court hearing on his challenge to the summons set for 10 June, the case pits political scheduling against investigative process — and the court's next move will set the tone.
Key Takeaways
Abhishek Banerjee sent a communique to West Bengal CID on 8 June seeking more time to appear for interrogation in the MLA signature mismatch case .
He had previously failed to appear before the CID on 1 June , prompting a fresh summons asking him to appear by noon on Monday.
Banerjee travelled to New Delhi on Saturday to attend an INDIA bloc meeting, making his non-appearance on Monday apparent in advance.
He has challenged the CID summons in the Calcutta High Court , also seeking protection against arrest; the next hearing is on 10 June .
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das rejected Banerjee's plea for a fast-track hearing, fixing 10 June as the next date.
Trinamool Congress general secretary and Lok Sabha member Abhishek Banerjee has sent a fresh communique to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of West Bengal Police on Monday, 8 June, seeking additional time to appear at the CID office in South Kolkata for interrogation in the MLA signature mismatch case. The request comes after he left for New Delhi to attend an opposition INDIA bloc meeting, making it clear he would not present himself before the agency as directed.
Background: What the Case Is About
The signature mismatch case was registered following complaints by several Trinamool Congress MLAs who alleged that their signatures had been forged on official documents submitted to the West Bengal Assembly. The CID, the state's premier investigative agency, has been probing the matter and had summoned Abhishek Banerjee for questioning.
Banerjee, the nephew of former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, had already failed to appear at the CID office on 1 June, following which the agency served him a fresh notice asking him to appear by noon on Monday.
Why Banerjee Did Not Appear
According to state police sources, it became apparent by Saturday afternoon that Banerjee would not comply with the CID summons, as he departed Kolkata for New Delhi to attend the INDIA bloc meeting scheduled for Monday. Mamata Banerjee also travelled to the national capital, arriving on Sunday, for the same meeting.
In his communique to the CID on Monday, Banerjee cited his presence in New Delhi and also referenced the upcoming 10 June hearing at a single-judge vacation bench of the Calcutta High Court on his petition challenging the CID summons.
High Court Petition and Legal Strategy
Banerjee had last week approached the Calcutta High Court with a petition challenging the CID summons and seeking protection against coercive action — including arrest — in connection with the case. He simultaneously filed a plea seeking a fast-track hearing.
However, the single-judge vacation bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das rejected the fast-track plea and fixed 10 June as the next date of hearing. The outcome of that hearing is expected to determine whether Banerjee is required to appear before the CID or receives interim protection.
What Happens Next
The 10 June Calcutta High Court hearing will be closely watched, as it will decide the scope of legal protection available to Banerjee against the CID summons. State police sources have not indicated whether the agency will take further action before the court date. This is the second consecutive instance of Banerjee failing to appear before the CID in this case, raising questions about the investigation's timeline.
Point of View
Each time with a procedural reason — first no-show, then a political meeting, now a court date in the wings. The pattern raises a straightforward accountability question: at what point does repeated non-appearance become obstruction, and will the CID or the court draw that line? The Calcutta High Court's 10 June hearing is effectively the last procedural shield before the agency must decide whether to escalate. That the case involves alleged forgery of legislators' own signatures — within the ruling party — adds an intra-party dimension that mainstream coverage has largely glossed over.
NationPress
27 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the MLA signature mismatch case involving Abhishek Banerjee?
The case was registered after several Trinamool Congress MLAs alleged that their signatures were forged on official documents submitted to the West Bengal Assembly. The West Bengal CID is investigating the matter and has summoned Abhishek Banerjee, the party's general secretary, for questioning.
Why did Abhishek Banerjee not appear before the CID on 8 June?
Banerjee had travelled to New Delhi on Saturday to attend an INDIA bloc opposition meeting scheduled for Monday. He sent a formal communique to the CID on Monday citing his presence in New Delhi and the upcoming Calcutta High Court hearing on 10 June as reasons for seeking more time.
What is the Calcutta High Court hearing on 10 June about?
Banerjee has filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging the CID summons and seeking protection against coercive action, including arrest. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das rejected his plea for a fast-track hearing and fixed 10 June as the next date of hearing.
Has Abhishek Banerjee missed CID appearances before in this case?
Yes. Banerjee had already failed to appear before the CID on 1 June, following which the agency served him a fresh notice directing him to appear by noon on 8 June. His second non-appearance on 8 June marks the second consecutive instance of non-compliance.
What happens if the Calcutta High Court does not grant Abhishek Banerjee protection?
If the court declines to grant interim protection or stay the CID summons at the 10 June hearing, Banerjee could be required to appear before the agency for interrogation. The CID could also consider further legal steps, though no such action has been announced as yet.
