Calcutta High Court Permits Ex-TMC MLA Humayun Kabir to Seek Z+ Security from Centre

Introduction

In a significant ruling on political security concerns, the Calcutta High Court has granted liberty to Bharatpur MLA Humayun Kabir, a former Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader who recently founded his own political outfit, to approach the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for enhanced Z+ category security cover. The decision, delivered by Justice Suvra Ghosh in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 313 of 2026 (Humayun Kabir vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), underscores the court's recognition of potential threats faced by dissenting political figures while respecting the constitutional division of powers over security matters. Kabir, who claims apprehension to his life and property following his split from the ruling TMC, argued for central intervention amid perceived biases in state-level protection. This order not only addresses immediate security needs but also highlights broader tensions in India's federal structure regarding protection for legislators, especially those navigating intra-party conflicts and new political ventures.

The bench, comprising single-judge Justice Suvra Ghosh, disposed of the petition without delving into its merits, instead directing the MHA to consider Kabir's representation within a tight two-week timeline. This procedural liberty could set a precedent for other politicians seeking escalated protection from central agencies when state assurances fall short, particularly in politically charged environments like West Bengal.

Case Background

Humayun Kabir, the petitioner and Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Bharatpur constituency in Murshidabad district, has a notable political trajectory that forms the backdrop of this writ petition. Initially elected under the TMC banner as part of the ruling dispensation in West Bengal, Kabir broke away last year to establish the Janata Unnayan Party, a move that he claims has escalated threats to his safety. As per details from court records and supplementary news reports, Kabir's political realignment stemmed from internal disagreements within TMC, positioning him as a potential rival in the state's volatile political landscape.

The events leading to the dispute began with Kabir's formal apprehension of threats post-party formation. He approached the Calcutta High Court via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking deployment of police personnel, specifically Z+ category security, which is the highest level of VIP protection in India, involving around 55 personnel including NSG commandos, CRPF, and state police. Z+ cover is typically reserved for high-risk individuals like top politicians, judges, and officials facing severe threats from terrorism or organized crime.

The legal questions at the heart of the case revolved around the jurisdiction over personal security provisions. Constitutionally, under Schedule VII, List II (State List), matters of public order and police are primarily the domain of state governments. However, the petition raised whether central intervention via the MHA—responsible for internal security and coordination of forces like the CRPF—is warranted when state mechanisms may be influenced by political affiliations. Kabir contended that his rift with the ruling TMC, which controls the state government, could compromise impartiality in local police deployment.

The case timeline is relatively swift: Filed in early 2026 amid ongoing political activities in Murshidabad, a region known for communal sensitivities and political violence, the petition was heard and disposed of promptly, reflecting the urgency of security matters. Reports from other sources indicate that Kabir has been conducting public programs, with district police providing coverage, but he seeks more robust, unbiased protection. No prior incidents of violence against him were reported in the judgment, but his status as an MLA and the formation of a new party amplified the perceived risks.

This background mirrors recurring themes in Indian jurisprudence where political defections and security demands intersect, often invoking fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedoms), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's case was anchored in the narrative of heightened vulnerability following his political independence. Represented by counsel including Mr. Subasish Dasgupta and others, Kabir submitted that his transition from TMC to founding the Janata Unnayan Party had created friction with the ruling establishment, potentially biasing state police responses. He emphasized the adequacy of current security—merely two armed constables provided by Murshidabad district police for several years—as insufficient against organized threats. Key factual points included his active involvement in legislative duties and public engagements, where large-scale police deployment had been arranged without incidents, yet personal protection remained minimal. Legally, the petitioner invoked the state's obligation under Article 21 to ensure life and liberty, arguing that perceived political interference necessitated central oversight. He specifically sought Z+ cover, highlighting precedents where central forces were deployed for opposition leaders in conflict-prone areas.

On the respondent side, the State of West Bengal, represented by Mr. Swapan Banerjee and Ms. Susmita Shaw, countered with evidence of existing safeguards. The state's report detailed comprehensive police arrangements for Kabir's programs, including instructions to cover all events, and affirmed the continuity of personal security via two armed constables. They argued no untoward incidents had occurred, underscoring the state's compliance with its duties under the State List. The state posited that escalating to Z+—a resource-intensive measure—lacked justification without concrete threats, and that internal mechanisms were sufficient to address any biases.

The Union of India, as respondent No. 4 through the MHA and represented by Mr. Anirban Mitra and Mr. Somnath Adhikary, adopted a neutral yet delineating stance. They clarified that personal security falls under Schedule VII, List II, firmly in the state's purview, but acknowledged the petitioner's right to formally request central assistance. The Union emphasized that such requests would be evaluated on merits, without preempting state responsibilities. This argument highlighted the federal balance, where central forces like CRPF could be requisitioned but only upon state recommendation or exceptional circumstances.

Both sides engaged in a nuanced debate: The petitioner focused on preventive security amid political risks, while respondents stressed evidentiary thresholds and jurisdictional limits, avoiding any admission of bias but implying routine state adequacy.

Legal Analysis

The Calcutta High Court's reasoning navigated the delicate interplay between state autonomy and individual rights, without opining on the petition's substantive merits. Justice Suvra Ghosh's order reaffirmed the constitutional framework under Schedule VII, List II, which vests police and public order exclusively with states, thereby limiting direct judicial mandates for central deployment. However, the court astutely granted procedural liberty, allowing Kabir to submit a "comprehensive representation" to the MHA, directing a time-bound consideration. This approach draws from established principles in writ jurisprudence, where courts under Article 226 issue directions to facilitate administrative remedies without overstepping executive domains.

No specific precedents were cited in the judgment, but the ruling implicitly aligns with broader high court and Supreme Court decisions on security petitions. For instance, it echoes the Supreme Court's observations in cases like Khashboo v. State of Maharashtra (2014), where enhanced security was directed for public figures facing threats, emphasizing Article 21's expansive protection against reasonable apprehensions. Similarly, the liberty granted mirrors procedural directives in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), where courts have facilitated approaches to central authorities for matters overlapping federal lines, such as internal security coordination.

The court distinguished between ongoing state provisions (e.g., program coverage and personal constables) and the petitioner's demand for escalated Z+ cover, which involves national resources. It clarified that while states handle primary policing, the MHA's role in deploying central forces under the CRPF Act, 1949, or for VIP protection protocols, justifies the representation route. This distinction prevents judicial micromanagement while upholding access to remedies, particularly relevant in politically polarized states like West Bengal, where opposition leaders often allege state complicity in threats.

Legally, the order invokes no penal sections but rests on administrative law principles, ensuring the MHA's response aligns with "facts and circumstances" and law, without costs or admissions. The emphasis on a two-week timeline introduces urgency, a tool courts use to enforce accountability in rights-based petitions. Overall, the analysis reinforces federalism's flexibility, allowing central intervention as a safety valve without undermining state primacy.

Key Observations

The judgment features several pivotal excerpts that illuminate the court's balanced approach:

• On the petitioner's profile and claim: "The petitioner was a member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly under the banner of the ruling political dispensation and has presently formed his own political party. The petitioner apprehends threat to his life and property and seeks deployment of police personnel, preferably of Z+ category for his protection."

• Regarding state provisions: "It appears from the report submitted by the State that the petitioner has been granted adequate and large scale police deployment by the district police for the programmes conducted by him and no untoward incident has occurred therein. He has been provided with two armed police constables for his personal security for last several years by the Murshidabed district police which is still continuing."

• On jurisdictional aspects: "Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that providing personal security is covered under Schedule 7 List 2 which is the domain of the State. However, the petitioner may approach the Ministry of Home Affairs with such request which may be considered by the latter."

• Directing the process: "The petitioner is at liberty to submit a comprehensive representation before the 4th respondent demonstrating the circumstances under which he requires deployment of police personnel for security and protection. On receipt of such representation, the 4th respondent shall deal with the same in the light of the facts and circumstances stated therein and take necessary steps in accordance with law, preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application."

• Clarifying scope: "It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the 4th respondent shall be at liberty to deal with the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law."

These observations, attributed to Justice Suvra Ghosh, emphasize evidentiary restraint and procedural efficacy, providing a roadmap for similar future claims.

Court's Decision

The final decision disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Ministry of Home Affairs with a detailed representation for Z+ security deployment, subject to payment of requisite costs. The MHA was directed to process the request within two weeks, considering all facts and circumstances in accordance with law. Notably, the court refrained from any substantive adjudication, stating explicitly: "The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted."

Practically, this orders Kabir to formalize his security plea centrally, potentially leading to CRPF or NSG involvement if approved, augmenting his current state-provided cover. The implications are multifaceted: For Kabir, it offers a viable avenue for enhanced protection amid his new political foray, possibly deterring threats in Murshidabad's sensitive milieu. Broader effects include reinforcing the mechanism for opposition politicians to bypass perceived state biases, promoting federal cooperation in security.

In future cases, this could influence how high courts handle analogous petitions, favoring administrative directions over direct orders, thus streamlining VIP protection requests. It may encourage more such approaches to the MHA, straining central resources but upholding Article 21's mandate. For legal professionals, the ruling serves as a reminder of writ jurisdiction's procedural potency in federal disputes, potentially cited in escalating political violence scenarios across India. Ultimately, while not a substantive win, it pragmatically addresses the petitioner's concerns, balancing rights with constitutional limits.