Calcutta High Court Transfers Mahua Moitra Complaint to Designated MP/MLA Court, Sets Aside Cognizance

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the cognizance taken by a Krishnanagar magistrate in a complaint case against Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and ordered the proceedings transferred to the designated Special Court dealing with cases against MPs and MLAs at Bidhanagar, North 24-Parganas. A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt disposed of Moitra’s criminal revision on September 7, directing that the complaint be treated as being at the pre-cognizance stage before the transferee court.

A Case Shrouded in Jurisdictional Questions

The complaint, registered as C.R. 309 of 2026 before the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagar, Nadia, alleged that Moitra made a hate speech and insulted women. An arrest warrant was later issued against the MP for her alleged failure to appear before the magistrate. Moitra challenged the warrant and the very jurisdiction of the Krishnanagar court, arguing that as a sitting Member of Parliament, any criminal proceeding against her must be handled by the designated MP/MLA court in Bidhanagar.

The Core Argument: Special Courts for Lawmakers

Moitra’s counsel, Arko Kumar Nag, submitted that the alleged speeches and the filing of the complaint all fell within her tenure as an MP, making it imperative that the matter be tried by the designated special court. He maintained that the allegations were baseless and that the complaint’s contents did not constitute a criminal offence. The state and the defacto complainant opposed the revision, raising preliminary issues including the Division Bench’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Supreme Court’s Clarion Call for Speedy Justice

The High Court, however, declined to enter the jurisdictional debate. Instead, it anchored its decision on the Supreme Court’s consistent directive in Ashim Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. (2017 SCC OnLine SC 2195) and subsequent pronouncements. The Bench observed:

“We find that in Ashim Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2195 and all the previous and subsequent pronouncements thereof, the desire of the Supreme Court was that the proceeding against a Member of Parliament or a Member of the State Legislature should be dealt with by specified Court as expeditiously as possible.”

Given that the complaint was pending before a regular magistrate’s court—not the designated special court—the High Court deemed it appropriate to transfer the case.

Setting Aside All Prior Orders

The Court directed the District Judge, Nadia, to transmit all records of the complaint case to the District Judge, North 24-Parganas forthwith. The latter, in turn, will send the records to the appropriate Special Court at Bidhanagar. Crucially, the High Court ordered that the transferee court treat the proceedings as a pre-cognizance stage, effectively erasing the magistrate’s earlier cognizance order and all consequential steps.

“In view of our direction that the Transferee Court will treat the complaint case as pre-cognizance stage, all orders and proceedings taken by the transferor Judicial Magistrate of taking cognizance and orders passed consequent thereto are set aside.”

This includes the arrest warrant that was previously stayed by the High Court on August 24.

Implications and What’s Next

With the High Court setting aside the earlier proceedings, the designated MP/MLA court at Bidhanagar will now take up the complaint from scratch. The special court will examine whether the allegations warrant taking cognizance—entirely afresh and without being influenced by the earlier magistrate’s actions. The order underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that cases against lawmakers are handled by specially designated courts, as mandated by the Supreme Court, to guarantee both expeditious handling and procedural propriety.