The Supreme Court on Friday, 16 October 2026, disposed of a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra, granting her relief over accommodation at the Krishnanagar Circuit House in Nadia district, West Bengal, and directing the district administration to examine pending projects under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). The apex court modified a district administration circular that had required three to four days' advance notice for accommodation at the Circuit House, ruling instead that one day's notice would suffice.

Background: Eviction and the September Circular

Moitra had approached the apex court following what she described as a late-night eviction from the Krishnanagar Circuit House in August 2026. The Nadia district administration subsequently issued a circular on 1 September 2026 mandating that Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly from the district provide three to four days' advance notice before seeking Circuit House accommodation.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, argued that the circular was specifically targeted at the TMC MP, noting that she had routinely been given accommodation on considerably shorter notice in the past.

What the Supreme Court Found

The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant-led bench observed that the requirement of three to four days' advance notice appeared retaliatory in nature. The court also underscored Moitra's status as the elected representative of the Lok Sabha constituency, affirming that this entitled her to preferential treatment regarding accommodation.

The bench declined to accept West Bengal's contention that accommodation should be provided only subject to availability, ruling that Moitra would hold a preferential right to stay at the Circuit House as the constituency's elected representative. This sets a notable precedent for how state administrations can treat sitting MPs regarding access to government facilities within their own constituencies.

Government's Counterarguments

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the respondent authorities, disputed the allegations. He submitted that the Circuit House was undergoing maintenance at the time of the eviction and that the administration had offered Moitra alternative accommodation. The court, however, proceeded to modify the circular despite these submissions.

MPLADS Projects: 18 Pending Since May 2026

On the issue of development projects, Moitra's counsel informed the court that 18 MPLADS projects had remained pending since May 2026, with the district administration allegedly failing to cooperate in their implementation. The Supreme Court requested the district administration to examine this grievance and take appropriate steps.

Moitra was also granted the liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court if her grievance over the pending projects remained unaddressed. This comes amid a broader pattern of reported friction between certain Lok Sabha MPs and state-level administrations over MPLADS fund utilisation — a tension that has surfaced periodically across multiple states.

What Happens Next

With the petition disposed of and the circular modified, Moitra must now give the Nadia district administration one day's advance notice before seeking Circuit House accommodation. The district administration has been directed to review the 18 stalled MPLADS projects. Should the administration fail to act, Moitra retains the option of escalating the matter to the High Court. The ruling reinforces that elected representatives cannot be administratively disadvantaged in accessing constituency-level government facilities.