"These Issues Should Not Come Before Us": Supreme Court Disposes Mahua Moitra's Circuit House Eviction Case

The Supreme Court today disposed of Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra's plea alleging a serious breach of protocol and contemptuous conduct after she was asked to vacate her constituency accommodation at circuit house in West Bengal's Krishnanagar late in the night against the High Court's orders.

A CJI Surya Kant led bench dealt with the circular dated September 1, 2026, whereby the petitioner and other Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Nadia district had been asked to give at least three to four days' prior notice before the proposed date of journey for the purpose of making appropriate arrangements for stay and accommodation at the circuit house.

The bench noted that the petitioner will inform the district administration a day before her visit, whereupon necessary accommodation at the circuit house, as per protocol, may be provided.

"We are conscious of what we are saying. We are not making any new law. We are fully conscious..This whole thing could have been avoided," CJI Surya Kant observed.

As the matter was taken up today, the bench said, "These are not the issues that should come before court, you can issue an SOP on it".

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed Court about the factual matrix and said that Circuit house was undergoing maintenance, which Moitra herself acknowledged. "On date in question, no room had been allotted to anyone. Petitioner was courteously escorted. Petitioner was informed that Nadia Circuit House would remain unavailable for use wef. No officer or any person physically approached the petitioner to shift to any other accommodation. NO ONE, including petitioner, would be prevented in accordance with law," SG Mehta further informed court.

Justice Bagchi told SG Mehta that two issues arose, one thing was availability and the other was precedence. 'Availability would be subject to precedence. There are perhaps only two MPs," court further said.

SG Mehta had on the last hearing told court,"Individual issues of members of Parliament are directly being agitated before the Supreme Court. These are individual issues. Somebody else may come and say my schemes are not implemented. The question I am putting is, would all MPs be entitled to come to the Supreme Court?"

Last month, CJI Surya Kant led bench was informed that local officials evicted Moitra from her constituency accommodation in the middle of the night despite a protective High Court order.

"May I mention an Article 32 petition by a sitting lady Member of Parliament who was evicted from her constituency accommodation by local officials, the Additional District Magistrate and the District Magistrate, in the dead of the night at 11 pm. This requires some comprehensive directions because it involves issues of federalism. It also requires an independent investigation. This has happened despite the High Court already having passed a protective order. I am only praying for listing on an early date because this involves an important constitutional issue," court was told.

Notably, Moitra has also moved a privilege notice before Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla against three senior officials, alleging a serious breach of protocol.

CPI(M) MP K Radhakrishnan had also written to Birla, in support of Moitra, urging him to initiate a formal inquiry or refer the matter to the Committee on Privileges to hold the responsible officials accountable.

In her notice sent under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, dated August 16, Moitra has sought action against Nadia District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, and Nazareth Deputy Collector. Moitra, has alleged that the officials' conduct was part of a "larger effort" to prevent her from carrying out her parliamentary duties and sought the Speaker's protection to discharge her constitutional responsibilities "free of intimidation and harassment."

According to her notice, Moitra informed the Speaker on August 13, before returning to West Bengal after the Monsoon Session, about her visit to the constituency and sought protection from harassment or impediment. She said she reached the Nadia Circuit House, the official accommodation for MPs visiting the district headquarters, at around 6.15 pm on August 14 and was given her usual room, which had been readied for her.

At 9.47 pm, she received a call from the Nadia additional district magistrate, asking her to vacate the premises. When she sought the reason, the ADM allegedly told her that the "order had come from the top", referring to the district magistrate, she said. At 10.52 pm, she received a WhatsApp message from the Nazareth deputy collector along with a copy of an order dated August 12, stating that the circuit house would not be available for service from the evening of August 14 till further orders because of annual maintenance and cleaning.

Moitra confirmed in her notice to the Speaker that the staff told her that no cleaning or maintenance work was taking place except the installation of a water-iron removal plant outside the building, and that the kitchen and staff were fully operational. She has also questioned the manner in which the order was communicated, saying it was not emailed to her beforehand or displayed at the reception, but was sent to her only through WhatsApp at 10.52 pm.

Case Title: MAHUA MOITRA Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: October 16, 2026