DJ remark case: Calcutta HC tells Abhishek Banerjee to submit voice sample; grants protection from egg pelting

The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee to appear before the jurisdictional magistrate on July 15 for recording of his voice sample in connection with the criminal case over his election campaign remarks.

Justice Saugata Bhhattacharyya held that Banerjee must comply with the High Court's earlier direction requiring him to cooperate with the investigation. However, the Court also directed the police to ensure that he is not harassed or pelted with eggs when he appears before the authorities.

Many TMC leaders have been physically attacked after they lost the recent assembly elections in West Bengal.

"Police authorities are directed to take measures so that petitioner will not be victim of egg pelting or any other harassment when the petitioner will appear before the jurisdiction magistrate slash investigating agency for any notices," ordered the Court.

The Court also refused to entertain Banerjee's revision petition challenging the order permitting collection of his voice sample. Banerjee eventually withdrew the same.

The matter concerns certain statements made by Banerjee during election campaigns in the run up to the West Bengal Assembly elections. He is reported to have remarked that once the election results are declared, DJs would play music so loud to celebrate that it would make people's ears ring.

A voter filed a criminal complaint alleging that this remark was intimidating and provocative.

On May 21, the High Court had restrained the police from taking coercive action against him till July 31 while making it clear that the protection was conditional upon his cooperation with the investigation.

A trial court subsequently permitted the West Bengal Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to collect his voice sample in this case, leading Banerjee to challenge that order before the High Court.

During the hearing of the matter on Friday, the Court made it clear that its earlier interim protection from arrest granted to Banerjee was conditional upon Banerjee cooperating with the investigation.

"The decision taken by the authority in connection with the investigation for recording your voice sample or for taking your voice sample comes under the umbrella of my order... Irrespective of this order passed by jurisdictional authority, you are bound to cooperate with the investigation," observed the Court.

Elaborating further, the Court held,

"Now the investigating authority has passed an order or issued a notice for recording of your voice sample... Court has passed an order and granted you a protection subject to compliance with the notices and extending cooperation to the investigating agency. Therefore so far this court is concerned, this court need not enter into the niceties which you are trying to raise before this court in connection with the order passed by the jurisdiction magistrate."

The Court also expressed displeasure over Banerjee filing the criminal revision petition before another Bench while his writ petition concerning the same criminal proceedings remained pending.

"With pain I am expressing my mind that I passed the order on 21st May 2026. What is troubling me that after that this sort of applications will be filed before other courts, that criminal revisional applications before the other court... it reveals the conduct of the petitioner," remarked the Court.

The Court added that the proper course would have been to seek modification of the order already passed in the writ petition.

"You ought to have made an application before this court seeking modification of the order passed by this court. Keeping my order intact passed on 21st May 2026, whether it is permissible to file a criminal revisional application which is offshoot to the offshoot of the same criminal prosecution seeking an order from another court which is contrary to the order passed by this court?" explained the Court.

The Court further observed that the revision petition appeared to have been filed with the object of stalling the investigation.

"This is nothing but a ploy to frustrate the investigation after obtaining order from writ court."

Following the Court's observations, Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacherjee, appearing for Banerjee, sought permission to withdraw the revision petition and accepted responsibility for the legal strategy adopted.

"This is our wrong legal advice by us, not by the petitioner," he submitted.