The Supreme Court on Friday directed West Bengal authorities to provide Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra with Circuit House accommodation in Nadia district on one day’s notice, calling a district administration letter requiring longer advance notice retaliatory.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi modified a September 1 communication issued by the Nadia district administration. That earlier notice had required Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly from the district to provide three to four days of advance notice before securing rooms at the state-owned property, a restriction the bench overruled after hearing arguments in New Delhi.
Supreme Court Overrules Advance Notice Rule and Circuit House Restrictions
The legal intervention resolved a grievance brought by the Krishnanagar parliamentarian following an incident on the night of August 14, 2026, when she alleged local officials attempted to evict her from the Krishnanagar Circuit House despite an approved room allocation. Moitra’s legal counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, told the bench that she had routinely obtained accommodation at the facility with only a few hours of notice over the past decade, first as an MLA and later as an MP.
Dear @IPUparliament I am a sitting woman MP in India. I was asked by govt to vacate my room in official guest house at 21:47 hrs & then at 22:52 hrs. While a BJP crowd is baying for my blood outside the gates. This is state of democracy in India on Independance Day. https://t.co/oHcSBFXoTP
— https://x.com/MahuaMoitra/status/2088332883043967191
In her initial account of the August 14 dispute, Moitra stated that she arrived at the facility at around 6:15 pm and was given her usual room. Later that evening at 9:47 pm, she received a telephone call from the Nadia additional district magistrate asking her to vacate the premises, followed by a WhatsApp message at 10:52 pm containing the order. She claimed that after she refused to leave, a large crowd gathered outside and chanted “Jai Shri Ram” slogans. She also raised concerns about the location of the building directly across from the official residences of the district magistrate and the superintendent of police, arguing that no crowd should have been able to assemble there.
Following the August dispute, the parliamentarian escalated the issue to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla by submitting a notice on August 16 under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, seeking action against the Nadia District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate, and Nazareth Deputy Collector for official harassment.
Appearing for the state government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the September circular, arguing that it applied generally to legislators and officials in the district rather than targeting any single individual. The bench rejected that condition, emphasizing the MP’s constitutional role.
She will have preferential right to stay, not because she is an MP but because she’s representative of that constituency.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, via Moneycontrol
The justices emphasized that administrative friction over guest house access should be handled through standardized protocols rather than litigation, prompting the chief justice to observe that such disputes do not belong before the highest court.
Mehta offered to withdraw the contested circular and replace it with a general procedure applicable to eligible representatives. The court directed that Moitra need only inform the district administration one day prior to a scheduled visit to ensure proper arrangements are made in accordance with official protocol.
Stalled MPLADS Development Projects Referred Back to District Administration
Beyond the guest house dispute, the petition raised concerns regarding the implementation of local infrastructure works funded through the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme. Moitra’s legal team informed the justices that at least 18 development projects, including school roof construction and repair works, had stalled since May 2026 due to a lack of cooperation from local authorities.
The state’s counsel argued that individual constituency grievances regarding development schemes were not matters for an Article 32 petition before the apex court. The bench declined to adjudicate the broader development issues directly, instead requesting that the district administration examine the MP’s representations and take appropriate steps.