Overview
The Supreme Court on 1 October 2026 asked the Union government and the State of West Bengal to respond to a petition filed by Krishnanagar MP Mahua Moitra. The petition alleges that the state’s ruling party and police are using goons and mobs to prevent her from performing her duties as a Member of Parliament.
Key Developments
- The bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana ordered the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to file counter‑affidavits on behalf of both governments.
- Ms. Moitra, represented by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Yashwant Singh, claims that after the May 2026 state elections, the BJP formed the government in West Bengal, pushing her party, the TMC, into opposition.
- She alleges systematic obstruction: eviction from the Circuit House, blockage of MPLAD works, denial of police protection, and multiple FIRs filed against her.
Important Facts
- Since May 2026, local police and civil officials have allegedly refused to assist Ms. Moitra in inspecting MPLAD projects.
- Multiple complaints about BJP‑affiliated mobs threatening and assaulting the MP have reportedly received no response.
- The petition argues that such state actions violate the federal principle by impeding a parliamentarian’s functioning.
Exam Relevance
This case touches upon several core UPSC topics:
- Centre‑State relations and the limits of state power over elected representatives (GS2).
- Judicial review and the role of the Supreme Court in safeguarding constitutional rights (GS2).
- Political dynamics in West Bengal, illustrating how party changes affect governance and opposition rights (GS2).
- Use of development funds like MPLAD and their political implications (GS3).
Way Forward
The Supreme Court’s order for counter‑affidavits will clarify whether the state’s actions constitute a breach of constitutional guarantees. Aspirants should monitor the court’s final judgment to understand how Indian jurisprudence balances federal autonomy with the protection of elected officials. The episode also underscores the need for robust mechanisms to ensure that state machinery does not become a tool for partisan intimidation.