Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Against Lawyer For Posting Book Extracts On Mamata Banerjee's Personal Life Gursimran Kaur Bakshi 13 March 2026 6:10 PM IST The Supreme Court today(March 13) issued notice and ordered status quo in a plea filed by Advocate Koustav Bagchi seeking to quash a defamation complaint filed against him after he posted an extract of a book which had allegedly made certain remarks concerning the personal life of the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee . A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the interim order in a special leave petition filed against the October 31, 2025, order passed by the Calcutta High Court. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (for the petitioner) submitted that the High Court had dismissed the petitioner's revisional application seeking quashing of the Trial Court's order, taking cognisance of the offence of defamation under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The petitioner is a practising advocate before the Calcutta High Court. In May 2025, he had posted on his Facebook account an extract of a book authored by Dipak Kumar Ghosh. It is said that in the book, which was published in 2015, the author had made comments on the personal life of CM Banerjee. Dave pointed out to the bench that the book was never banned and continues to be in circulation. Therefore, the petitioner had only posted an extract of that book on his social media. He also stated that if the alleged offence is committed against a public functionary, such as the Chief Minister, cognisance can only be taken if the conduct is in discharge of "public functions" of the said functionary, as per Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The author had also disclosed that he had written a letter to the CM on April 30, 2012, asking for information. Bagchi had uploaded parts from the book, including this letter, on social media platforms and had also allegedly made comments touching upon the personal life of the CM. Following this, as required under Section 222, the public prosecutor filed a complaint, availing the privilege of the Minister as per Section 222(2) of the BNSS after obtaining statutory sanction. After giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta, took cognisance of the offence, without the case being committed to it, and ordered the issuance of a summons. Upholding this order, the High Court said that the extract pertains to the oath-taking ceremony and therefore is related to the conduct of the public servant in discharge of her public functions. Case Details: KOUSTAV BAGCHI v STATE OF WEST BENGAL|Diary No. 14612-2026