A division bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt granted Moitra interim protection on Monday while hearing her challenge to the lower court proceedings. The matter will be taken up again on August 27, when the High Court is expected to hear the complainant before deciding the next course of action.
The warrant had been issued by the Third Judicial Magistrate at Krishnanagar on August 19 after the court concluded that Moitra had failed to comply with repeated summonses. The magistrate had directed that a report on execution of the warrant be submitted by August 28.
Moitra represents Krishnanagar in the Lok Sabha. Her counsel, Arko Kumar Nag, argued before the High Court that the proceedings should be heard by the designated MP/MLA court in Salt Lake because the allegations relate to statements and complaints connected with her position as a member of Parliament.
Her lawyer also challenged the substance of the complaint, describing the allegations as baseless and frivolous and arguing that the statements cited against Moitra did not constitute criminal offences. The jurisdictional issue is likely to form an important part of the proceedings when the case returns before the division bench.
The case before the Krishnanagar court stems from a complaint filed on June 17. The complainant accused Moitra of making remarks that allegedly insulted women, promoted hostility between groups, hurt religious sentiments and amounted to hate speech.
The complaint invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita covering words or gestures intended to insult the modesty of a woman, promoting enmity between groups, deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings, criminal intimidation and statements capable of promoting communal hostility.
The dispute followed the circulation of a video message by Moitra after women associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party gathered outside a Krishnanagar court carrying eggs and tomatoes when she was expected to appear there. Moitra responded to the episode through videos posted on social media.
Her remarks included references to religious attire while addressing the women involved in the protest. The complainant alleged that the comments were offensive to women and religious communities and could disturb communal harmony. Moitra has disputed the allegations.
Proceedings before the magistrate subsequently focused not only on the contents of the complaint but also on Moitra’s failure to appear personally despite summonses. The lower court ultimately concluded that further summonses were unlikely to secure her attendance and ordered the warrant.
Moitra had said after the August 19 order that she would seek legal remedies and expressed confidence in the judiciary. Her lawyer had earlier sought exemption from personal appearance and raised concerns that she could face heckling outside the court premises if she attended.
The magistrate rejected the repeated non-appearance as sufficient reason for continued exemption. The order issuing the warrant referred to what it described as a pattern of disobedience of the court’s directions.
The High Court’s intervention has now stopped enforcement of that warrant while Moitra’s challenge is considered. The bench’s decision does not dispose of the complaint or determine whether the allegations against her are sustainable. It provides protection against arrest while the procedural and jurisdictional questions are examined.
The August 27 hearing will place the complainant’s arguments before the High Court and could clarify whether the Krishnanagar magistrate should continue handling the case or whether it should be transferred to the designated court dealing with cases involving legislators.
