The Calcutta High Court has sought a detailed report from the West Bengal government on the decision to downgrade Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee’s security cover from Z-plus to X category.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Justice Krishna Rao questioned the state government on the basis for reducing the security cover and on the alleged attacks reported by the MP after the downgrade. The court specifically sought to know who would be responsible if Abhishek Banerjee faced a serious attack after his security cover had been reduced. The court has granted the state government time to file a detailed report, with the next hearing scheduled for October 13.
The matter arises from a petition filed by Abhishek Banerjee challenging the decision to reduce his security cover. His lawyers told the court that he had earlier been provided Z-plus security, but that his protection was downgraded to the X category after the West Bengal Assembly elections in May. They also claimed that Banerjee had allegedly been targeted several times after the downgrade and that requests regarding his security had been made to the government.
During the hearing, the court questioned the possible consequences of treating the security arrangement as an administrative matter. Justice Krishna Rao observed that while throwing stones could be considered a minor offence, the consequences could be serious if a stone struck a person. In this context, the court asked whether Banerjee’s security had been reviewed again after the downgrade and what steps had been taken in response to the security concerns raised by him.
Banerjee’s lawyers told the court that he had been receiving Z-plus security since 2016. They said that even after a threat assessment conducted by the Union Home Ministry in 2024, he continued to receive Z-plus security across the country. The petitioner’s side questioned the basis on which the threat assessment was conducted before the security cover was suddenly reduced in May and whether the order or reasons for the decision had been made available to him.
The petitioner’s lawyer also argued that a threat assessment should have been conducted before reducing the security cover. The lawyer said that when a person has been provided a particular level of security for a long period, the relevant security assessment and circumstances should be clarified before reducing it. The petitioner also sought a report from the Union Home Ministry to establish the basis for the downgrade.
Additional Solicitor General Dheeraj Trivedi, appearing for the central government, took a different position during the hearing. He said that an individual’s security requirements and threat assessment are determined by the state police because law and order falls within the state’s jurisdiction. Referring to an alleged incident in Sonarpur in May, he said there were reports that eggs had been thrown at Abhishek Banerjee, but the available hospital report did not mention any serious injury requiring his admission.
The West Bengal government told the court that a security assessment report prepared by the police special branch had found no specific threat to Abhishek Banerjee within the jurisdiction of Kolkata Police. The state’s lawyer said the security category was changed to X on the basis of that assessment. The government also informed the court that a detailed report had been prepared on May 29. The High Court has now directed the state government to submit a detailed account of the entire matter by way of an affidavit.
The issue of Banerjee’s reduced security cover gained further attention after an alleged incident during his visit to Sonarpur in South 24 Parganas at the end of May, involving protests and alleged misbehaviour. Police arrested people in connection with the incident. According to available reports, police said five people had been arrested on the basis of video footage and two others had been questioned.
Following the Sonarpur incident, questions were raised about the security arrangements. According to one report, objects were allegedly thrown towards Banerjee and allegations emerged of pushing or an attempt to attack him. The incident also led to discussion about a review of security arrangements at the police level. However, different claims have emerged regarding the circumstances and responsibility for the incident, and these aspects are being examined in the court proceedings on the basis of evidence.
The High Court is examining the basis on which the decision to reduce the security cover was taken and whether the security arrangements were reviewed after subsequent incidents. The court has not issued a final decision on Banerjee’s security and has instead given the state government an opportunity to present its position and relevant records.
The next hearing is scheduled for October 13, when the state government is required to place its detailed report on the security downgrade before the court. The report is expected to address the security assessment, the basis for reducing the security cover, the status of the order and the steps taken in response to security concerns subsequently raised by Banerjee.
The distinction between Z-plus and X category security was also discussed during the hearing. Banerjee’s lawyer told the court that X-category protection is considerably limited, while Z-plus security involves a larger number of security personnel as well as broader arrangements covering the individual, residence and office. The level of security provided to an individual, however, is determined on the basis of threat assessment and the applicable security protocols.
The court has not said that the decision to reduce Banerjee’s security was incorrect. Its present examination is focused on the adequacy of the security arrangements and the process followed in taking the decision. The High Court has sought details of the basis for the decision, relevant documents and subsequent circumstances. The final position will depend on the state government’s report and further proceedings.
The case concerns a politically sensitive issue in West Bengal, but the court is examining it on the basis of the security assessment and the administrative decision. The petitioner’s side has cited alleged incidents after the security downgrade while seeking adequate protection, whereas the state government maintains that the category was changed following a security review.
The court’s key question is how responsibility for ensuring the safety of a protected person would be determined if an attack occurred after the person’s security cover had been reduced. The state government has therefore been directed to provide the relevant information before the October 13 hearing, after which the basis and process behind the downgrade and any changes made to the security arrangements following the alleged incidents can be examined further.
