Trinamool Congress leader and Member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee has filed a fresh petition in the Supreme Court of India after being denied permission to travel abroad for eye treatment. The senior politician has challenged a recent verdict by the Calcutta High Court that refused to grant him clearance to leave the country. The ongoing legal battle stems from travel restrictions imposed on him in connection with an alleged inflammatory speech case.
Legal Background and Travel Restrictions
The requirement for court clearance originates from a criminal case registered against Abhishek Banerjee regarding an alleged hate speech. When the Calcutta High Court earlier granted him protection from arrest in this matter, it imposed specific conditional directions. Among those stipulations was a mandatory requirement stating that he cannot travel outside India without seeking explicit permission from the court. Banerjee subsequently approached the judiciary seeking a relaxation of this condition so that he could travel overseas for medical care.
Chronology of High Court and Supreme Court Proceedings
This matter has seen multiple rounds of litigation over the past few weeks. On July 20, the Calcutta High Court turned down his plea to go abroad for treatment and suggested instead that he receive medical care at the government-run SSKM Hospital. Dissatisfied with that outcome, Banerjee approached the Supreme Court. On August 3, the apex court issued directions instructing the High Court to decide on his travel request expeditiously.
High Court Rejection Over Non-Appearance Before Medical Board
Following the Supreme Court direction, the Calcutta High Court heard the matter again and formally dismissed Banerjee's application on August 5. The High Court highlighted that a specialized medical board had been constituted to evaluate whether his condition genuinely necessitated treatment outside India. However, Banerjee did not appear before the designated board. The court noted that had he presented himself for medical examination, the board's report would have assisted the bench in reaching a definitive conclusion.
Arguments by Defense Counsel and State Government
During the legal arguments, counsel representing Abhishek Banerjee emphasized that he wished to continue treatment under the care of the same medical specialist in the United States who had previously conducted surgery on his eye. The defense expressed unwillingness to accept the alternative option of government hospital treatment. Conversely, the West Bengal state government strongly opposed his foreign travel request in court. State counsel argued that the situation did not constitute a critical medical emergency requiring overseas travel, while also raising concerns that granting permission to leave the country could potentially impact the ongoing legal investigation against him. The matter now rests before the Supreme Court for further hearing.
