Is a Contempt Plea Against Bengal Speaker Over CM Mamata’s Security Exemption Justified?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The tension escalates in West Bengal as Suvendu Adhikari files a contempt plea against Speaker Biman Bandopadhyay for allegedly breaching court orders regarding security exemptions for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Will this legal battle reshape the political landscape?
Key Takeaways
- Contempt of court petition filed by Suvendu Adhikari against Assembly Speaker.
- Accusation of granting security exemption to CM Mamata Banerjee.
- Previous court ruling prohibits personal bodyguards in assembly.
- Legal proceedings are set to continue in Calcutta High Court next week.
- Opposition calls for preservation of CCTV footage as evidence.
Kolkata, Sep 11 (NationPress) The West Bengal Leader of Opposition, Suvendu Adhikari, has filed a contempt of court petition against Assembly Speaker Biman Bandopadhyay in the Calcutta High Court. This action stems from the Speaker allegedly granting a security exemption to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, which is claimed to violate a prior court ruling.
In his petition, Adhikari asserts that the Speaker's allowance for the Chief Minister to access the assembly premises accompanied by personal bodyguards contravenes a clear judicial directive. The case has been assigned to the single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court and is poised for a hearing next week.
Recently, a ruling from a single-judge bench led by Justice Amrita Sinha emphasized that no legislator could enter the assembly premises with personal bodyguards, citing existing legal provisions.
Despite this, the Speaker clarified that the prohibition would apply to all legislators, irrespective of their party, while the Chief Minister would be granted an exemption from this rule.
On Monday, Adhikari approached Justice Sinha’s bench, arguing that the Speaker’s exemption for the Chief Minister constitutes contempt of court, given the prior stipulation that no legislator is permitted to enter the assembly with personal bodyguards.
He contends that all legislators, regardless of whether they belong to the ruling or opposition parties, should hold equal standing in the Assembly, asserting that no member—including the Chief Minister—should receive preferential treatment concerning assembly regulations.
Consequently, the Speaker’s decision to permit CM Banerjee to enter the Assembly with personal bodyguards has been labeled as contempt of court.
Justice Sinha has allowed the Leader of the Opposition to submit the petition, with proceedings expected to occur next week.
Additionally, the Opposition's legal team has requested the High Court to instruct the Assembly authorities to secure the CCTV footage to serve as evidence during the hearings.
Point of View
The recent contempt plea filed by Suvendu Adhikari against Speaker Biman Bandopadhyay reflects the ongoing tensions between the ruling government and opposition parties. The legal ramifications of this case could have profound implications for the perceived authority of the court and the principles of equality among legislators. As the situation develops, it remains crucial to uphold the integrity of our legal system to ensure fair governance for all.
NationPress
11/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the basis for the contempt plea?
The contempt plea is based on the accusation that Speaker Biman Bandopadhyay violated a court order by allowing CM Mamata Banerjee to enter the assembly with personal bodyguards.
What was the court's earlier ruling?
The court's earlier ruling, made by Justice Amrita Sinha, stated that no legislator should enter the assembly premises with personal bodyguards.
What does this mean for the Chief Minister?
This situation puts the Chief Minister's actions under scrutiny and raises questions about adherence to legal mandates by governmental figures.
When will the case be heard?
The case is expected to be heard next week in the Calcutta High Court.
What is the significance of this case?
The case highlights the balance of power within the assembly and raises important questions about equality among legislators.
