Supreme Court rejects Mahua Moitra's plea regarding police appearance
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra approached the Supreme Court to challenge a Calcutta High Court order requiring her personal appearance at a police station in a case involving alleged hate speech. A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, refused to intervene in the matter and dismissed the plea. The court questioned the petitioner's concerns regarding safety and potential protests, noting that such issues should not be matters for judicial consideration.
3 paksh3 articles
What Happened
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging a Calcutta High Court order that mandated her personal appearance at a police station in Nadia. The case stems from allegations of hate speech and religious sentiments being offended. During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, declined to grant relief or allow virtual appearance, directing the MP to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
The court expressed strong disapproval of the arguments raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding security concerns and the fear of being pelted with eggs. The bench remarked that such apprehensions were inappropriate for a political figure and should not be brought before the court. Consequently, the plea was dismissed, and the petitioner was instructed to comply with the earlier high court directive to appear at the police station on August 14.
Key Facts
- Mahua Moitra is a Trinamool Congress MP representing Krishnanagar.Source not recorded
- The Supreme Court bench was led by Justice Dipankar Datta.Source not recorded
- The petition challenged a Calcutta High Court order requiring personal appearance at a police station.Source not recorded
- The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the high court's directive.Source not recorded
- The court dismissed concerns raised by the petitioner regarding safety and potential protests.Source not recorded
The Timeline3
Every article on this story, in the order it was filed. We do not rank the outlets.
7 Aug
CoverageWhat we read
Language reach
Dailies carrying this story, against the dailies we read in each language.
- Bengaliবাংলা2 of 2
- Malayalamമലയാളം1 of 2
Regional reach
Where this story reached, and where it did not. National mastheads and wire agencies circulate everywhere and are counted separately, not drawn on the map.
- None carried this
- No source registered
- 1 outlet
- 2 or more
- Where the story is
- NorthNot carried0 of 4
- WestNot carried0 of 5
- Central IndiaNot carried0 of 1
- EastCarried2 of 5
- North-eastCarried1 of 2
- SouthCarried1 of 10
3 of the 26 states we read have local coverage. Spread across the country, with no regional concentration.
About This Analysis
One summary, built from every source. No single newsroom's voice.
- 3
- Paksh
- 3
- Articles
- 5
- Key facts
Paksh: the sides a story is told from. 3 newsrooms filed on this one, and every filing is listed above.