The Supreme Court declined to entertain TMC MP Mahua Moitra's plea seeking permission to appear virtually before the Investigating Officer in an FIR over an alleged provocative Facebook post

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra seeking permission to appear virtually before the Investigating Officer in connection with an FIR registered over an alleged provocative Facebook post.

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu refused to grant the relief after questioning the necessity of virtual appearance when the investigation required her physical presence.

Appearing for Moitra, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan submitted that the FIR stemmed from a Facebook post and sought permission for his client to join the investigation through video conferencing.

When the Bench asked why she could not appear before the Investigating Officer in person, Sankarnarayanan argued that Moitra was legally entitled to seek virtual appearance. He further submitted that the police had directed her to appear at a police station within her parliamentary constituency, where she had previously faced protests.

According to the senior counsel, during an earlier visit, threats had been made that eggs would be thrown at her, and on a subsequent occasion, eggs were in fact hurled.

The Bench, however, was unimpressed.

Justice Datta remarked that having entered public life and politics, an elected Member of Parliament (MP) could not seek exemption from appearing before the investigating agency merely because of the possibility of protests. He further observed that freedom fighters had faced bullets in the struggle for independence and remarked that such applications ought not to reach the Supreme Court.

"You are a member of parliament? Having taken the plunge into politics, you fear eggs? When our freedom fighters have taken bullets on their chest? These are applications that should not come before this court at all. Dismissed," Justice Datta said. 

The Bench also pointed out that the petitioner had an adequate remedy before the High Court, referring to paragraph 19 of the impugned order and observing that if she chose not to appear before the Investigating Officer, she would have to face the consequences before the High Court.

Subsequently, Sankarnarayanan sought permission to withdraw the petition.

The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the plea as withdrawn.

What happened before the High Court

On July 23, the High Court had granted her interim protection from arrest, subject to her cooperation with the investigation, and directed her to appear before the Investigating Officer on August 14 after the conclusion of Parliament's Monsoon Session.
Taking note of her apprehension that she had previously faced protests and egg-pelting while appearing before the police, the High Court also directed the West Bengal Police to ensure her safety during the investigation.
While extending interim protection till the next date of hearing, the High Court made it clear that Moitra was required to cooperate with the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer.
It was against this backdrop that she approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to join the investigation virtually instead of appearing in person, a request that the apex court ultimately declined to entertain.

Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. 

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu

Hearing Date: August 7, 2026

Tags: