Justice Krishna Rao raised questions on Tuesday over the material considered before the protection of the Diamond Harbour MP was sharply reduced and asked whether his threat perception had been reassessed after alleged attacks following the change.
The court was hearing Banerjee’s petition seeking restoration of Z-plus security. His lawyers argued that the enhanced cover was withdrawn on May 10 after the change of government in West Bengal, leaving him with X-category protection involving two personal security officers.
During the hearing, the court noted that the state had not produced documents demonstrating the considerations on which the downgrade was based. Justice Rao also questioned the sequence of the decision after being told that the reduction took effect on May 10 while a letter relating to its consideration was dated May 12.
The judge asked the government to clarify why Banerjee had not been informed that his security was being reduced. The court also sought details of steps taken after authorities were informed of an alleged attack on him later in May and whether those incidents prompted a fresh security review.
Banerjee’s counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, told the court that the MP had faced four attacks after the downgrade. The allegations cited before the court included stone and egg pelting during a visit to Sonarpur, an encounter involving an armed person at Kolkata airport, and attacks targeting his offices.
The allegations are part of Banerjee’s case for restoration of the higher protection and have not been adjudicated by the court. The bench focused on whether the state had followed an adequate threat-assessment process and responded appropriately as security concerns were reported.
Justice Rao stressed that the government had a responsibility to take precautions, observing that even an incident described as stone-pelting could cause serious injury if a projectile struck a person. The observation came as the state sought time to place a detailed account of its security assessment before the court.
The state’s counsel requested time to submit the report. The court fixed October 13 for the matter to return before the bench, requiring the government to provide a fuller explanation of the decision and its response to developments after the downgrade.
Banerjee moved the High Court on September 28, alleging that his Z-plus protection had been withdrawn after the West Bengal Assembly election and seeking its restoration. His counsel had sought an urgent hearing, citing the alleged attacks and concerns over his safety. Justice Rao then scheduled the petition for October 6 and directed that the parties be served.
His lawyers have told the court that Banerjee had received graded security protection for years, progressing through higher categories before being accorded Z-plus cover. They also submitted that a Union Home Ministry threat assessment in 2024 supported Z-plus protection for him across the country.
The security arrangement became a contested issue after the May Assembly election brought a change of government in West Bengal. A state security review led to the withdrawal of the Z-plus arrangement, with Banerjee thereafter receiving the lower X-category cover.
At Tuesday’s hearing, the court’s questions centred less on the government’s power to review protection and more on the evidence and procedure underpinning the decision. It sought to establish what threat inputs were examined, why the reduction was made when it was, and what action followed subsequent complaints.
The court also indicated during proceedings that restoration of the cover could be considered while the state prepared its explanation, prompting the government to agree to an early return date rather than seek an adjournment. No interim direction restoring Z-plus protection was issued at Tuesday’s hearing.
