Kolkata High Court Orders TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee to Submit Voice Sample

The Kolkata High Court has instructed TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee to present a voice sample by July 15, following allegations of intimidating remarks made during the West Bengal assembly elections. Justice Sougata Bhattacharya expressed frustration over delays in compliance and warned of potential consequences if the order is not followed. Banerjee has also sought the dismissal of a related FIR. The court emphasized the need for police to ensure his safety during court appearances. This case highlights ongoing tensions in West Bengal's political landscape as Banerjee navigates legal challenges while asserting his rights.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 10, 2026, 18:12 IST

Court Directives for Abhishek Banerjee

The Calcutta High Court has mandated that Abhishek Banerjee, a Member of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress (TMC), present himself before a judicial magistrate on July 15 to provide a voice sample. This directive comes in response to allegations regarding intimidating statements made during the West Bengal assembly election campaign.

Justice Sougata Bhattacharya expressed significant displeasure over the delays in Banerjee's compliance with the voice sample request. During the proceedings, the judge warned that he might expedite hearings concerning the cancellation of proceedings and the withdrawal of protective orders for the MP.

Banerjee has been granted relief until July 31, linked to a First Information Report (FIR) filed in April regarding comments made at a public rally. The TMC MP has also sought the dismissal of this FIR.

The High Court has issued strict instructions to police officials to ensure that Banerjee is not subjected to any form of harassment, such as being pelted with eggs, when he appears before the relevant court or investigative agency. Additional Advocate Rajdeep Majumdar assured the court that such incidents would be prevented.

Previously, Banerjee challenged an order from the Bidhannagar Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate's Court, which required him to provide a voice sample at the police's request during the investigation. Justice Bhattacharya clarified that the protection from severe action granted to Banerjee is contingent upon his cooperation with the investigation and compliance with the notice. The judge also warned of dismissing the petition and imposing heavy fines if the order is not followed.

Banerjee's attorney informed the court that the MP acknowledges that the voice in question belongs to him but asserts his constitutional right to contest the lower court's order. The lawyer stated that Banerjee is prepared to provide his voice sample on Saturday and has requested security. Ultimately, the court dismissed Banerjee's review petition, considering it withdrawn at the request of his lawyer, and instructed him to appear on July 15. The judge expressed disappointment that the review petition was brought before another bench after the order dated May 21, reflecting poorly on the petitioner's conduct.