Calcutta High Court Declines Urgent Hearing on Abhishek Banerjee’s Plea Against Alleged Media Trials
The Calcutta High Court has declined to urgently hear a plea filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee seeking legal intervention against alleged media trials arising from the reporting of investigation-related information concerning him.
According to a report published by LiveLaw on October 13, 2026, the matter was mentioned before Justice Saugata Bhattacharya. The court indicated that it would not be possible to hear the plea before the Puja vacations and that the matter could be placed in the monthly list for December 2026.
Banerjee’s plea alleges that information concerning investigative steps, including details of interrogations, was being disclosed to media organisations. According to his allegations, such disclosures and subsequent reporting have affected his reputation and raised concerns about the fairness of the ongoing investigation.
The matter had previously been mentioned before a single-judge bench of Justice Krishna Rao on October 8, 2026. The court declined to entertain the plea before that bench, observing that the matter should be placed before the appropriate bench with jurisdiction over issues concerning police action. Banerjee was granted liberty to approach the appropriate bench.
During the earlier proceedings, Banerjee’s counsel argued that investigating agencies should not disclose details of ongoing investigations to the media in a manner that could prejudice the proceedings or damage an individual's reputation. The plea seeks judicial intervention to address the alleged dissemination of investigation-related information and the resulting media coverage.
The development raises broader legal questions concerning the right to reputation, privacy, fair investigation and freedom of the press. It also highlights the procedural importance of placing a matter before a bench with the appropriate jurisdiction and the distinction between declining an urgent listing and deciding the substantive merits of a petition.
The court’s decision not to grant an urgent hearing does not, by itself, determine whether the alleged information leaks occurred or whether the media coverage violated any legal right. Those issues remain allegations requiring appropriate judicial consideration.
As reported on October 13, 2026, the matter was expected to be listed in December 2026. Any subsequent listing or judicial direction should be verified before publication.
Source: LiveLaw, October 13, 2026.