Calcutta HC extends Abhishek Banerjee's arrest protection in MLA signature forgery case
Synopsis
The Calcutta High Court has shielded Abhishek Banerjee from arrest until 30 November, even as the state's own legal team told the court that a forensic report confirms three MLA signatures on a legislative document were forged — and that the forgery happened in his presence. The bench, however, said it was not preliminarily convinced of his direct involvement.
Key Takeaways
Calcutta High Court extended interim protection for Abhishek Banerjee from arrest till 30 November .
The case involves alleged forgery of signatures of 5 MLAs on a document submitted to the Assembly Speaker ; forensic examination confirmed 3 signatures were forged.
The document was dated 6 May but signatures were reportedly obtained on 19 May , according to AAG Rajdeep Majumdar .
The state argued the forgery occurred in the presence of Abhishek Banerjee , who is TMC general secretary and Diamond Harbour MP.
Justice Kaushik Chanda observed, preliminarily, that the court was not convinced of Banerjee's direct involvement in the forgery.
The Calcutta High Court on Monday, 17 August extended interim protection from coercive police action — including arrest — for All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) general secretary and Diamond Harbour Lok Sabha member Abhishek Banerjee, in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) probe into the legislators' signature mismatch case. The protection now runs until 30 November.
What the Case Is About
The West Bengal CID is investigating allegations that signatures of multiple TMC legislators were forged on an official document submitted to the Assembly Speaker. The document, drafted on the general secretary's official pad and dated 6 May, purportedly recorded a resolution passed on that date — but, according to the state's legal team, no such resolution was actually adopted then.
The signatures, the state argued, were in fact obtained on 19 May, yet the document was forwarded to the Speaker bearing the earlier date. Out of 70 legislators whose signatures appeared on the document, complaints were raised regarding five MLAs. A forensic examination has since confirmed that the signatures of three of those five were forged, according to the state's Additional Advocate General (AAG) Rajdeep Majumdar.
What the State Argued in Court
AAG Rajdeep Majumdar, appearing for the police, told the bench that the forgery was carried out in the presence of Abhishek Banerjee. He argued: 'No resolution was made on May 6. Yet it was written that the resolution was made on that day. The MLAs were not even asked to sign the resolution on that day. It was signed on May 19 in reality. But the resolution written on the General Secretary's pad on May 6 was sent to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. In view of which, five MLAs gave statements and stated that their signatures were forged. The truth of that forgery has come to light in the forensic report.'
Court's Preliminary Observation
Despite the state's submissions, the single-judge bench of Justice Kaushik Chanda observed, on a preliminary basis, that it was not persuaded that Abhishek Banerjee was directly involved in the signature forgery. The court nonetheless continued the hearing and extended the interim protection, keeping the matter sub judice.
Background and Broader Context
This is not the first time Abhishek Banerjee — widely regarded as the second most powerful figure in the TMC and a nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee — has faced legal scrutiny. He has previously sought and received court protection in separate probe matters. The current case centres on internal party document management and raises questions about the integrity of legislative processes within the state assembly. With the protection extended to 30 November, the next hearing will be closely watched by both the ruling party and the opposition.
Point of View
But it is not an acquittal. The forensic confirmation of three forged signatures on a document bearing the general secretary's pad is a material finding that the CID will press. What this case really tests is whether West Bengal's legislative processes have adequate safeguards against internal document manipulation. The broader pattern of senior TMC figures seeking court protection in CID probes also raises questions about the independence of the state investigative machinery — a concern that cuts both ways politically.
NationPress
17 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Calcutta High Court extend protection to Abhishek Banerjee?
The Calcutta High Court extended interim protection from arrest to Abhishek Banerjee until 30 November while hearing his plea in the MLA signature mismatch case. Despite the state presenting a forensic report confirming forged signatures, the bench said it was not preliminarily convinced of his direct involvement.
What is the MLA signature mismatch case about?
The case involves allegations that signatures of multiple TMC MLAs were forged on an official document submitted to the West Bengal Assembly Speaker. The document was dated 6 May but signatures were reportedly collected on 19 May, and a forensic report has confirmed that three of five disputed MLA signatures were forged.
What did the forensic report find?
The forensic examination found that the signatures of three out of five MLAs who raised complaints were forged on the official document. The state's Additional Advocate General informed the court of these findings during the hearing on 17 August.
Who is Abhishek Banerjee?
Abhishek Banerjee is the general secretary of the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the sitting Lok Sabha member from Diamond Harbour, West Bengal. He is also the nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and is widely considered the party's second most influential leader.
What happens next in the case?
The interim protection from arrest remains in place until 30 November, when the matter will come up before Justice Kaushik Chanda's bench again. The CID investigation is ongoing, and the forensic findings are expected to form a central part of the state's argument at the next hearing.
