“Court is Not a Political Arena”, SC Grills Petitioner in Contempt Case Against Mamata Banerjee
Contempt Case Against Mamata Banerjee: The hearing on the contempt of court case against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has been postponed for four weeks. However, the Supreme Court severely reprimanded the petitioner, a volunteer organization named ‘Atmadeep’, stating clearly that the court is not a political arena.
What Happened in Court
On Monday, the case was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, requested more time to seek permission from the Advocate General.
This request drew the ire of the Chief Justice. He remarked, “What is the guarantee that the Advocate General will grant permission? Are you assuming you will get the permission! This is a court, not a place for politics. Political battles should be fought in the political arena.”
Following these stern remarks, the hearing for the contempt case was adjourned for four weeks. The court did not dismiss the case but raised serious questions about the petitioner’s intentions.
Background of the Case
The controversy began after Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee made certain comments at a press conference following the Calcutta High Court’s verdict on the SSC recruitment scam. The volunteer organization ‘Atmadeep’ filed a contempt of court petition based on these remarks, alleging that her statements amounted to contempt of court.
Questions Over Political Motives
The Supreme Court’s reprimand of the petitioner has raised questions about whether the case was politically motivated. The Trinamool Congress has repeatedly alleged that the lawsuit was a deliberate attempt to tarnish Mamata Banerjee’s image. The apex court’s observations on Monday have lent weight to this accusation.
What’s Next
The hearing has been postponed for four weeks. In the meantime, the petitioner organization must obtain the necessary permission from the Advocate General. The next hearing will take place after that. However, the court’s stance today indicates its reluctance to entertain such petitions.
