Calcutta HC restrains Mamata Banerjee from making defamatory remarks against Governor Bose

Mamata Banerjee stood by her comments in court, saying that she was merely conveying the concerns of women regarding safety at the Raj Bhavan. She stated that women had approached her expressing her fear due to recent events reported at the Governor's residence.

Follow us:

ANI (File Photo)

New Delhi: The Calcutta High Court has issued a directive restraining West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee from making any 'defamatory or incorrect' statements against Governor CV Ananda Bose. This order came on Tuesday in response to a defamation case filed by the Governor on June 28. The defamation case stems from a statement made by Mamata Banerjee, where she claimed that women were afraid to visit the Raj Bhavan. 

The Chief Minister's remarks followed an incident on May 2, where a contractual female employee at the Governor's house accused Bose of molestation. This accusation led to an investigation by the Kolkata Police.

Banerjee's statement

Mamata Banerjee stood by her comments in court, saying that she was merely conveying the concerns of women regarding safety at the Raj Bhavan. She stated that women had approached her expressing her fear due to recent events reported at the Governor's residence.

Governor's legal action

Represented by his counsel, Governor CV Ananda Bose sought a court order to prevent the Chief Minister, along with two newly elected MLAs and another member of the Trinamool Congress, from making further comments about the alleged incident. Bose's legal team argued that Banerjee's statements were damaging and defamatory.

Banerjee's lawyer defended her statements by stating they reflected genuine apprehensions among women about the Raj Bhavan. He also expressed readiness to provide an affidavit listing the names of women who shared these concerns.

Immunity to governor

The defense further argued the non-maintainability of the Governor’s plea, citing Article 361 of the Indian Constitution. This article grants immunity to a Governor from criminal proceedings during their term in office. Banerjee's counsel also contended that the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case.

The female complainant, who accused the Governor of molestation, approached the Supreme Court on July 4. She challenged the immunity provided under Article 361, questioning whether allegations of sexual harassment and molestation should be covered under the Governor's duties and, therefore, be immune from legal action.