The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee challenging the West Bengal government's decision to reduce his security cover from Z-plus to X category. Justice Krishna Rao questioned why the state had not conducted a fresh threat assessment after Banerjee reported alleged attacks on himself and his family following the downgrade.

Source: Live Law

Banerjee's security was downgraded on May 12, three days after the new government was sworn in on May 9. Senior advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Banerjee had received Z-plus protection since 2013 on the basis of threat perception, and argued that the reduction was made without a meeting of the authorised security review committee. The allegation that the move was politically motivated is the petitioner's claim and is contested by the state.

Source: IANS via hi INDiA

Court asks why the state waited for the six-monthly review

The court asked whether any rule prevented the authorities from holding a review before the usual six-month interval, observing that once the petitioner had brought specific incidents to their notice, the state ought to have reconsidered his security rather than waiting for the next scheduled review. Counsel for Banerjee told the court that he and his family had faced six attacks since the reduction in cover — an allegation the state disputes.

Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharya, appearing for the state, opposed the plea and submitted that security cover of a particular category cannot be claimed as a matter of right. He told the court that a review had been conducted on May 29 after the May 12 downgrade, that assessments are ordinarily held every six months, and that the next review is scheduled for the end of November.

Source: India Legal Live

During the same hearing, the court also took exception to remarks by Banerjee that the state said cast aspersions on a section of the judiciary, observing that an elected representative could not be treated like an ordinary layperson, PTI reported. The judge made clear that the remarks would not influence the decision on the security plea. No order was passed on Thursday on the state's request in connection with those remarks, and the court's decision on the security petition is awaited.

Source: Law Trend