PILs Being Used as ‘Weapon’: Calcutta High Court Questions Plea Over Mamata Banerjee’s Rally Remarks

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday questioned the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed over alleged remarks made by Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee at a political rally, observing that PILs were increasingly being used as a “special tool or weapon”.

The division bench, headed by Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and comprising Justice Atarup Banerjee, questioned why the petition should be treated as a PIL and raised concerns over the growing use of public interest litigation for purposes beyond genuine public causes.

Court questions maintainability of PIL

During the hearing, the bench questioned the basis on which the petition had been filed as a public interest litigation.

The court reportedly observed that PILs were increasingly being used as a “special tool or weapon”, particularly to attract attention.

The judges asked the petitioner to explain how the matter qualified as a PIL and whether the petition met the legal requirements for such litigation.

Petition linked to remarks on Bangladesh activist's murder

The PIL relates to alleged remarks made by Mamata Banerjee concerning the murder of Bangladesh activist Sharif Osman Hadi in Dhaka in December 2025.

The petitioner claimed that Banerjee made controversial comments during a political rally in Kolkata on June 2 and alleged that the remarks could have implications for India's national interest.

The petition also sought to raise questions related to the Official Secrets Act, claiming that Banerjee was bound by its provisions.

Mamata Banerjee's lawyers oppose allegations

Appearing for Mamata Banerjee, senior lawyers Kalyan Bandopadhyay and Arka Kumar Nag questioned the basis of the allegations.

They argued before the court that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how any provision of the Official Secrets Act had been violated.

The lawyers also challenged the maintainability of the PIL and opposed the allegations made against the TMC chief.

State counsel makes submissions

Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumder, appearing for the state, told the court that an inquiry had been conducted into the matter.

According to the submission, the inquiry found that the petitioner was not present at the venue where the alleged remarks were made.

The state also submitted that no untoward incident had been reported in connection with the rally.

Matter listed for September 14

Following a request from the petitioner's counsel for additional time to obtain instructions, the Calcutta High Court deferred further consideration of the matter.

The court has listed the PIL for further hearing on September 14.

The proceedings are likely to be closely watched as the court examines both the allegations raised in the petition and the broader question of whether the case qualifies as a genuine public interest litigation.

Debate over misuse of PILs

The court's observation has once again brought attention to concerns surrounding the misuse of PILs.

Public interest litigation was developed as a legal mechanism to allow individuals and organisations to approach courts on matters affecting wider sections of society.

However, courts have repeatedly raised concerns that PILs can sometimes be used for political disputes, personal grievances or publicity.

The latest observation by the Calcutta High Court highlights the importance of carefully examining the intent and maintainability of petitions filed in the name of public interest.

Political and legal significance

The case has added another legal dimension to the political debate surrounding Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress.

While the petitioner has alleged that the remarks had implications for India's national interest, Banerjee's legal team and the state have disputed the basis of those claims.

The High Court's observations suggest that the maintainability of the PIL itself will be a key issue when the matter is heard again.

For now, the court has made it clear that not every allegation or political controversy can automatically be treated as a matter of public interest litigation.