You Fear Eggs?: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Mahua Moitra's Plea Seeking Personal Appearance Exemption In "Hurting Religious Sentiments" Case

The Supreme Court refused to grant relief to Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra regarding a Calcutta High Court order that directed her to physically appear before an Investigating Officer on August 14 in connection with a case of allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

The Court expressed strong disinclination to interfere; accordingly, Moitra withdrew the plea to approach the High Court.

Moitra filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging an order passed by the Calcutta High Court by which it had directed her to appear in person before an Investigating Officer on August 14 for interrogation in connection with a case registered against her for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

Although the High Court had granted her interim relief against any coercive steps till October 5, 2026, Moitra filed the SLP challenging direction to appear in person.

The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu refused to entertain the petition and accordingly dismissed it as withdrawn.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan appeared for Moitra.

Before the High Court, Moitra filed a writ seeking quashment of criminal prosecution initiated against her under certain provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. It was submitted that relevant sections so far the aforesaid criminal prosecution is concerned are 196/ 299/ 353 of BNS, 2023 and as per those provisions, prescribed punishment is well below seven (7) years.

Sankarnarayan argued that under the applicable statutory provisions, certain categories of individuals—including women—were protected from being compelled to attend an investigation at any venue other than their place of residence. Counsel submitted that the police notice required her personal attendance at a local police station within her constituency, where she had previously faced public hostility and incidents of egg-throwing.

He said, "The requirement now, as per the police's notice, is for me to arrive—be at the police station in my own constituency, to go to the police station. Last time I went there, two things happened. First, there were threats that eggs will be thrown, etc. Second time, eggs were actually thrown."

Justice Datta replied, "You're a Member of Parliament from that constituency. Having taken the plunge into politics, you fear eggs? When our freedom fighters have taken bullets on their chest?...These are matters which should not come before this Court at all."

The bench further noted that the petitioner had failed to fully comply with the directives outlined in the High Court's judgment and indicated that she could face appropriate proceedings before the High Court if aggrieved.

Upon the Court's inclination to dismiss the plea, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition to approach the High Court for necessary modifications. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Before the High Court, the State opposed the petition, noting that the Moitra failed to comply with four previous notices issued under Section 35(3) BNSS without a valid justification. The State insisted on physical appearance for interrogation, agreeing to issue notices scheduled post-August 13, 2026, to accommodate her parliamentary duties.

The High Court ordered, "As it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner will remain engaged in monsoon session of Parliament till 13th August, 2026, petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 14th August, 2026 at 3:00 P.M.15...At the time of appearance of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer pursuant to the order passed by this Court or in terms of the notices to be issued, it is to be ensured by the concerned police authorities that petitioner shall not be subjected to egg pelting or any other form of harassment...No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till 5th October, 2026 or until further order whichever is earlier, subject to compliance of the conditions alluded above."

Cause Title: Mahua Moitra v. The State of West Bengal [SLP(Crl) No.14405/2026]