Calcutta High Court stays arrest warrant against TMC MP Mahua Moitra over jurisdiction issue

In a significant interim relief, the Calcutta High Court on Monday stayed the arrest warrant issued against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra by a Krishnanagar court, questioning the lower court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. The Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt directed that no coercive action be taken against Moitra till September 30, 2026, or until further orders.

Background of the Case

The arrest warrant was issued on August 19, 2026, by the Third Judicial Magistrate at Krishnanagar after Moitra failed to appear despite repeated summons in a complaint case filed against her. The complaint, registered in June 2026, alleged that Moitra made objectionable remarks insulting women and delivering hate speeches. Additional reports indicate that the complaint also referenced comments about the Indian Army and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, as well as remarks on women wearing burqas and hijabs.

Moitra had previously lodged a complaint of her own on June 16, 2026, against certain individuals after an incident during a court proceeding, but the police did not act on it. The case took a complicated turn when the local Bar Association passed a resolution on July 18, 2026, allegedly preventing Moitra from participating in the proceedings.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appearing for Moitra, Advocate Debasish Roy (and his team) argued that the Krishnanagar court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. They submitted that since the alleged speeches and complaints arose from Moitra’s conduct as a Member of Parliament, the case should be transferred to the designated MP/MLA court in Salt Lake. The defense also contended that the arrest warrant was issued in haste, especially given that the Bar Association’s resolution had obstructed Moitra’s ability to appear.

The State, represented by Public Prosecutor Kallol Mondal, was present but the court had not yet heard the respondents’ side fully, as the opposite parties were yet to be served.

High Court’s Reasoning and Order

After reviewing the case, the Division Bench noted: “The issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court which directed issuance of Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner requires consideration.” This observ ation formed the basis for the interim stay. The court found that the jurisdictional challenge raised by Moitra was serious enough to warrant immediate protection from arrest pending a detailed hearing.

The bench listed the revisional application for August 27, 2026, and directed the State to serve copies of the petition to the opposite parties (nos. 2 to 6). Crucially, the court ordered: “Till September 30, 2026 or until further orders, police will not execute Warrant of Arrest issued as against the petitioner on August 19, 2026.”

Key Observations

The High Court’s order reflects a cautious approach, prioritizing the need to examine the jurisdictional question before enforcing the warrant. The magistrate’s earlier observation in the Krishnanagar court—that Moitra’s repeated absence showed a “lackadaisical approach”—was noted but set aside for now to allow the higher court to decide the threshold issue of jurisdiction.

Implications

This interim stay grants Moitra significant breathing room, especially as the October 5 deadline from an earlier protection order in a separate case also remains in effect. The next hearing on August 27 will see the complainant’s side, potentially shaping the course of the proceedings. The case underscores the importance of determining the proper forum for trials involving elected representatives and highlights how jurisdictional challenges can delay coercive measures.