Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra on Wednesday disputed a claim made by the State government before the Calcutta High Court that she has been provided "X" level security as per her entitlement as a Member of Parliament (MP) [Mahua Moitra v. State of West Bengal].
The submission was made before Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya during the hearing of Moitra's plea for upgraded security following the Tehatta egg-pelting incident in Nadia.
The Court proceeded to grant Moitra time place her submission (about the current status of her security cover) on record by filing a supplementary affidavit.
The matter will be heard next on December 2.
During an October 7 hearing of the matter, the Court had asked the State if there were any guidelines on the security cover or protection to be given to dignitaries like MPs.
At the time, Moitra's counsel had submitted that there is a "Yellow Book" which contains guidelines on how MPs should be given protection, which was a highly confidential document in the State's custody.
Today, the State's Additional Advocate General (AAG) Rajdeep Mazumder told the Court that Moitra, being an MP, is entitled to "X" category protection under the norms laid down in the Ministry of Home Affairs' Yellow Book.
This includes one Personal Security Officer (PSO) equipped with side arms who would accompany the MP round the clock.
He further said that one such PSO was already provided to Moitra.
The Court went on to observe that if Moitra wanted to be granted more protection, she would have to show why such security upgradation is required.
"If yellow book says that she is ‘X’ protectee, you (Moitra) have to demonstrate that you are entitled to get more security or enhanced or upgraded security ... in order to get an order, as you have prayed for in this writ petition, you are required to demonstrate to this Court that under the relevant procedure, you are entitled to get upgradation of security cover," Justice Bhattacharya said.
Moitra's counsel, however, replied that she does not have a round-the-clock PSO protecting her as claimed by the State.
"The PSO may have been allotted, but not reached to me. The PSO has not travelled with me. So there has to be a direction to that effect," said Moitra's counsel.
"One armed PSO is provided and he is not accompanying the petitioner? My experience is otherwise; we (judges) are also provided with PSOs. They always accompany us. Where you have stated in your writ petition that PSO does not accompany you from one point to another?" the judge asked.
"I will put it on affidavit, in reply to the (State’s) report. I was never prepared to deal with a report saying that I have a PSO," replied Moitra's counsel.
The judge went on to observe that if Moitra has already been allotted a PSO, but such officer was not offering round-the-clock protection, and order could be passed to change the PSO.
"You are praying for upgradation of security cover. Then you have to make out a specific case that this is the problem you are facing with the present PSO. Then court can also direct the concerned authority to change your PSO," he said.
This led Moitra's counsel to explain that the TMC leader is stating that she does not have a PSO at all.
“Let me file an exception to the (State's) report. I’ll demonstrate that I don’t have the PSO. Kindly appreciate, there is a report that says I have a PSO? The petitioner says the PSO is not with me," he said.
"You are not provided with the PSO?" the judge asked.
"I will put it in the affidavit, allow me. Grant me that report, I will put it there (in the affidavit filed in response to the State's report),” replied Moitra's counsel.
The Court proceeded to direct that a copy of the State's October 9 memo regarding the security cover allotted to Moitra be shared with her counsel. The Court allowed Moitra to file a supplementary affidavit with her response to the report.
The Court also granted Moitra liberty to add the Union Ministry of Home Affairs as a party to the case.