Back
's Rejection Prompts Abhishek Banerjee to Move Supreme Court Again for Eye Treatment
general secretary and Lok Sabha MP Abhishek Banerjee has once again approached the , seeking permission to travel abroad for ophthalmic treatment. This marks his second attempt before the apex court after the dismissed his plea on . The fresh petition comes days after a single-judge bench of Justice Sougata Bhattacharya refused to allow the Diamond Harbour MP to travel overseas, citing his refusal to appear before a medical board constituted to assess his condition.
The case stems from a criminal matter in which Banerjee faces allegations of making provocative speeches during the West Bengal Assembly elections. As part of a , the High Court had imposed a condition restricting his foreign travel. The MP, who suffered serious eye injuries in a 2016 road accident, has been seeking to continue treatment with a specialist in the United States who previously operated on him.
Background: A Procedural Tangle
Banerjee first moved the in for permission to travel abroad for eye treatment. During a hearing on , Justice Bhattacharya advised him to first consult specialists at the state-run in Kolkata. The court indicated that it would consider whether overseas treatment was necessary after examining the opinion of the S.S.K.M. specialists. Instead of complying, Banerjee approached the Supreme Court, which on referred the matter back to the High Court with a request to decide it expeditiously.
When the case returned to Justice Bhattacharya on August 5, Banerjee's counsel informed the court that the MP would not undergo the suggested consultation at S.S.K.M. The High Court then dismissed the application, noting that had Banerjee appeared before the medical board, its opinion could have enabled the court to determine whether he required treatment abroad. The court observed that it was not a medical expert and that the crucial question was whether Banerjee required treatment, rather than where such treatment was to be administered.
The High Court's Reasoning
Justice Bhattacharya's order rejected the argument that Banerjee had an absolute right to choose the doctor or medical establishment for his treatment. The court pointed to the pendency of several criminal prosecutions and ongoing investigations against the MP, which weighed against granting unrestricted travel permission. The had opposed the plea, contending that there was no medical emergency warranting treatment abroad and that permitting travel could affect ongoing investigations.
, appearing for Banerjee, had submitted that he wanted to continue treatment with the specialist in the United States who had previously operated on him. She also stated that Banerjee was unwilling to undergo treatment at S.S.K.M. Hospital. The High Court, however, found this stance unhelpful, emphasizing that the MP's refusal to cooperate with the medical board undermined his own request.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Rights and Investigation Needs
The case highlights a recurring tension in : the right of an accused person to seek medical treatment abroad versus the state's interest in ensuring their availability for investigation and trial. Courts often impose travel restrictions as a condition for , particularly when multiple FIRs are pending. Here, the High Court's insistence on a medical board assessment reflects a cautious approach—one that seeks objective evidence before allowing an accused to leave the jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the fresh petition will likely focus on whether the High Court's refusal was arbitrary or whether it properly exercised its discretion. The apex court may also consider whether the condition of appearing before a medical board was reasonable and whether Banerjee's refusal to comply justified the dismissal. Legal experts note that while an accused does not have an absolute right to choose a particular doctor, courts must also ensure that medical needs are not trivialized.
Impact on Legal Practice
This case serves as a practical guide for lawyers handling similar requests. It underscores the importance of complying with court-directed medical evaluations, as non-compliance can be fatal to a plea for travel permission. It also illustrates the weight courts give to the pendency of criminal cases when assessing such requests. For practitioners, the takeaway is clear: when seeking foreign travel for medical reasons, clients should be prepared to demonstrate a genuine medical need through recognized channels, rather than insisting on a preferred provider.
The Supreme Court's eventual ruling could clarify the scope of a court's power to impose medical consultation as a precondition for travel relief. It may also address whether a blanket refusal to consider overseas treatment, without a medical board's input, violates . As the matter awaits a hearing date, the legal community will watch closely for guidance on balancing individual health needs with the demands of criminal justice.
Conclusion
Abhishek Banerjee's renewed plea before the Supreme Court underscores the procedural hurdles that can arise when an accused person seeks to travel abroad for medical reasons. The High Court's rejection, based on his refusal to engage with the state medical board, raises important questions about the limits of and the obligations of the accused. With the apex court yet to schedule a hearing, the outcome will have significant implications for how similar requests are handled in the future, particularly in cases involving multiple pending prosecutions.
