Contempt Plea Against Mamata Banerjee Withdrawn After AG Withholds Consent

New Delhi - The Supreme Court of India today permitted the withdrawal of a high-profile criminal contempt petition against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, bringing an end to a politically charged legal battle. The petitioner, a public charitable trust named Aatmadeep, withdrew the plea after Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, declined to grant the mandatory consent required to initiate such proceedings.

The case stemmed from comments allegedly made by the Chief Minister criticizing the Supreme Court's April 2025 judgment, which had upheld the Calcutta High Court's decision to invalidate nearly 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments in the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment scam.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed the withdrawal after the petitioner's counsel informed the court of the development. "We have received instruction to withdraw the petition, the consent was applied, but the AG has not given consent," the counsel stated. Acknowledging the procedural bar, the Chief Justice permitted the withdrawal, effectively closing the matter.

The decision underscores the critical role of the Attorney General as a gatekeeper in criminal contempt cases, a safeguard designed to prevent the weaponization of contempt law for political or frivolous purposes.

Background: The SSC Recruitment Scam Judgment

The contempt petition was a direct fallout of a landmark Supreme Court ruling concerning the State Level Selection Test-2016 (SLST). In April 2025, a bench led by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna affirmed a Calcutta High Court judgment that nullified appointments made through the 2016 process. Both courts found the selection process to be fundamentally compromised by fraud, manipulation, and pervasive illegalities.

The Calcutta High Court's Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi had described the recruitment as "shrouded in such mystery and in such layers that it was difficult to fathom the quantum of illegalities." A critical factor influencing the decision was the failure of the SSC to preserve original OMR answer sheets or their digital copies, rendering any verification of genuine candidates impossible. The court concluded that the entire process was "tainted beyond repair" and ordered the cancellation of all appointments en masse.

The Supreme Court, in upholding this drastic measure, emphasized the paramount importance of maintaining the integrity of public recruitment. While acknowledging the "heartburn and anguish" for potentially untainted candidates caught in the crossfire, the apex court prioritized systemic purity over individual hardship. The court's judgment was exhaustive, relying on reports from the Justice (Retd.) R.K. Bag Committee and findings from a CBI investigation.

Following this judgment, Ms. Banerjee made public statements critical of the decision, which the petitioner, Aatmadeep, alleged amounted to criminal contempt of court.

The Attorney General's Gatekeeping Role

Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, initiating proceedings for criminal contempt requires the consent of the Attorney General (or the Solicitor General). This provision serves as a filter to ensure that the court's time is not consumed by vexatious litigation and that contempt powers are invoked only in cases of grave and substantial interference with the administration of justice.

In this instance, the Attorney General's refusal to grant sanction proved to be the decisive factor. While the reasons for the refusal have not been made public, it signals a high threshold for prosecuting public figures for commentary on judicial decisions. The decision likely weighed the nature of the remarks against the need to protect free speech and political expression, ultimately concluding that the alleged comments did not meet the standard required for initiating criminal contempt.

The Supreme Court's Cautious Approach

Throughout the brief history of this contempt plea, the Supreme Court's bench had expressed its reluctance to be drawn into a political fracas. During a hearing in July, when informed by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh that the petitioner was seeking the AG's consent, the bench led by CJI Gavai had pointedly remarked, "Are you sure you will get consent? We should dismiss it right now... don't politicize such issues."

This observation signaled the court's broader concern about its chambers becoming an arena for political battles. The judiciary has often walked a fine line between upholding its own authority and avoiding entanglement in political disputes. The bench’s earlier comments, coupled with the final allowance for withdrawal, reinforce its preference to keep political commentary, however sharp, outside the courtroom unless it directly and substantially obstructs the course of justice.

Finality of the SSC Scam Verdict

While the contempt proceedings have concluded, the underlying judgment on the SSC scam remains resolute. In August 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a batch of review petitions challenging the April 2025 verdict. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the review pleas were an impermissible attempt to seek a "re-hearing on merits," noting that all factual and legal arguments had been considered "extensively and exhaustively" in the original judgment.

Reiterating its stance, the review bench stated, "The purity of the selection process is of the highest priority and must remain pristine and free of infirmities." The court upheld its adverse remarks against the state authorities, holding them "wholly and solely responsible" for the scandal that had impacted thousands of lives.

The court's decision to dismiss the contempt petition does not alter the finality of its ruling on the recruitment scam. It merely separates the legal merits of the original case from the political fallout and commentary that followed. The matter, docketed as AATMADEEP (A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST) vs. MAMATA BANERJEE, Diary No. 21869/2025 , now stands closed.