Not a dispute that should come before us: Supreme Court grants Mahua Moitra relief in accommodation row

The Supreme Court on Friday modified a September 1 communication that required All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra to give three to four days’ notice before staying at the Krishnanagar Circuit House in West Bengal.

The Court said that she need only inform the district administration a day before her visit.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order while hearing Moitra’s plea alleging that she was asked to vacate the government guest house in the middle of the night on August 14, despite having been allotted a room.

The Court said that the accommodation could be provided in accordance with protocol following advance intimation. It also directed that the September 1 communication be modified to that extent.

“These are not issues which, in fact, should come to the Court. Probably what we require is only a small SOP,” CJI Kant remarked during the hearing.

He suggested that a standard operating procedure (SOP) be put in place for allotment of government circuit houses and guest houses to MPs and other eligible public functionaries.

Moitra had approached the Supreme Court alleging that district administration officials had pressured her to vacate the Krishnanagar Circuit House on the night of August 14. She claimed that a crowd gathered outside the premises while she was being asked to leave.

The dispute subsequently led to the Nadia district administration issuing the September 1 communication requiring MPs and MLAs to give at least three to four days’ advance notice before seeking accommodation at government guest houses and circuit houses.

During the hearing today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the September 1 communication was intended to streamline logistical arrangements and was not directed at Moitra individually. He denied that the MP had been evicted, stating that the circuit house was undergoing maintenance. He further argued that the administration had offered her alternative government accommodation. He said,

"On several occasions, persons arrive at the last minute seeking accommodation and every effort is made to accommodate them if rooms are available. However, difficulties and conflicts may arise when all rooms have already been occupied and other persons seek accommodation at the last minute."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, said that Moitra had been able to obtain accommodation at the circuit house with just three to four hours’ notice for the past ten years.

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Bagchi questioned the circumstances in which the September 1 communication had been issued.

“That recent incident is the incident you clarified just now, that this MP had gone and was told that because the pump was being repaired, accommodation could not be arranged,” Justice Bagchi told Mehta.

Mehta maintained that the communication was not aimed at Moitra individually, but applied to all MPs and MLAs in Nadia district.

Sankaranarayanan, however, maintained that the communication had targeted the Moitra and sought its withdrawal.

Mehta then offered to withdraw the communication and replace it with a general SOP.

“Without the Court having to injunct it, I can say I withdraw this and have a general SOP which would apply,” he said.

CJI Kant suggested that the SOP should govern access to government accommodation for all eligible persons, taking into account the availability of rooms and the order of precedence under the applicable protocol.

“What we would say is, factoring in two things: one, availability and precedence. Availability is subject to precedence and precedence is governed by protocol,” said CJI Kant.

The Court subsequently indicated that Moitra could inform the district administration a day before her visit, following which accommodation could be provided as per protocol. CJI Kant also stressed that disputes over accommodation could have been avoided through mutual courtesy.

"Courtesy and respect are to be earned, not demanded," he added.

The Court also addressed Moitra’s allegations that the Nadia district administration had not cooperated in implementing development projects under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).

Sankaranarayanan told the Court that 18 projects in the Krishnanagar constituency had been stalled since May 2026. He submitted that the district administration had attributed the delays to its workload following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

He argued that Moitra could not implement the projects without the cooperation of local officials and that the alleged obstruction affected her ability to discharge her responsibilities as an elected representative.

Mehta opposed the Court intervening in the dispute, arguing that such grievances could arise between MPs and State governments controlled by different political parties.

CJI Kant then said that the Court would not adjudicate the implementation of the MPLADS. Instead, the Bench said it would request the district administration to examine Moitra’s representations and take appropriate steps.

"We will request the district administration to look into the matter and take appropriate steps. And if you are aggrieved, you can approach the jurisdictional High Court," said the Court.

[Read Live Coverage]