Back
Rejects Abhishek Banerjee Petition After He Refused Local Eye Medical Examination
The has formally dismissed the plea of (TMC) General Secretary and Diamond Harbour Member of Parliament, Abhishek Banerjee, seeking permission to travel abroad for specialized ophthalmic treatment. The decision, rendered by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, marks a significant moment in the ongoing surrounding the travel rights of individuals facing active . The court’s dismissal followed a rigid insistence by the judiciary that any requirement for foreign medical intervention must first be validated by an independent domestic medical assessment, a condition the petitioner ultimately declined to fulfill.
Background of the Case
Abhishek Banerjee had moved the High Court, invoking , to secure authorization for travel overseas, citing a pre-existing eye condition that allegedly required the attention of specialized practitioners outside India. This application emerged against the backdrop of several criminal cases pending against the Member of Parliament, in which he is currently an accused. Due to the sensitivity of these investigations—specifically those involving the —the judiciary had previously imposed restrictions on his travel, requiring him to obtain prior court approval before leaving the .
The petitioner’s request for travel was initially met with caution by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya. The court reasoned that in the absence of a confirmed that could not be addressed by healthcare infrastructure within the country, granting permission to travel could potentially impede the progress of ongoing criminal probes. To bridge this gap, the Court proposed the formation of a three-member medical board from the state-run in Kolkata to perform a preliminary evaluation. The objective was clear: to determine if the required ocular treatment was available within India, thereby removing the necessity for international travel.
The Procedural Deadlock
The case had already seen an appearance before the . Following the High Court’s initial refusal to grant immediate relief, Banerjee approached the Apex Court, represented by Senior Advocate . The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Venkita Subramani Mohan, had subsequently referred the matter back to the , directing it to reach a final decision within a seven-day window.
Upon the case returning to Justice Bhattacharyya’s bench, the core conflict shifted from the procedural backlog to the petitioner’s willingness to submit to the medical board. During the hearing, Senior Advocate , representing the petitioner, emphasized the importance of continuity in medical care, noting that her client had previously received treatment at medical facilities in the United States. She argued that the interruption of such specialized care could be detrimental.
In contrast, the State’s representative, Additional Advocate General , strongly opposed the application. He contended that the petitioner was not an accused in the relevant ED-registered case during his previous foreign visits, and that the current legal landscape necessitated a stricter approach to ensure that ongoing investigations were not disrupted by his absence.
The Court’s Firm Stance
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya underscored that the court is not a medical body and cannot independently determine the necessity of specialized foreign medical procedures. The refusal of the petitioner to undergo the examination by the SSKM medical board proved to be the decisive factor.
The Court’s rationale was captured in its observation:
"If this treatment can be administered in India, there is no need to go abroad."
Furthermore, the Bench expressed reservations regarding the validity of the medical documents submitted by the petitioner, noting that they lacked essential details such as the doctor’s registration and institutional affiliations, which hindered the court's ability to verify the urgency of the requested travel.
Ultimately, the failure to secure the petitioner's consent to the medical evaluation forced the court’s hand. The final order stated:
"In view of submission by the counsel for the applicant (on instructions) that he will not appear before the medical board as indicated by this court, this court finds the issue which is agitated by filing the application ought not to be kept pending further. Hence, present application is dismissed."
Legal Implications and Judicial Precedent
This case serves as a poignant reminder of the evolving balance between an individual’s and the judiciary's mandate to ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system. While the right to seek medical treatment is a well-established entitlement under the , this right is not absolute when it intersects with pending criminal proceedings.
For legal professionals, the case highlights the high required to challenge in high-profile criminal cases. Courts are increasingly adopting a "trust-but-verify" approach, where they prefer to rely on the opinions of neutral, court-appointed medical boards rather than private reports submitted by the parties themselves. This practice minimizes the risk of biased medical testimony and ensures that travel permissions are not used as a loophole to evade legal accountability.
Impact on Legal Practice
The rejection of this plea signifies a broader trend where the judiciary is tightening the scrutiny over . Practitioners should note that when seeking relief in similar scenarios, the submission of a robust, credible, and authenticated medical report is critical. Moreover, when a court proposes a local medical evaluation to settle a point of fact, declining such a proposal can be perceived as an act of , often resulting in the dismissal of the plea.
Furthermore, the case illustrates the procedural friction that can arise when unrelated criminal cases are bundled into omnibus petitions. While the court did not outright dismiss the challenges to the FIRs based on this "bundling" issue, the judicial caution displayed in this travel plea suggests that the court will continue to insist on granular, case-specific evidence for every request made by an accused party.
As the legal community observes, this ruling reinforces the principle that is heavily guided by the necessity and the transparency of the evidence provided. For the petitioner, the legal battle regarding the various FIRs filed against him continues, but the door for immediate foreign travel for medical reasons remains closed for the time being. The refusal to engage with the court’s proposed diagnostic framework effectively stalled his application, confirming that the court’s authority to manage its own proceedings—and the individuals under its —remains a paramount concern in the pursuit of justice.
