The Supreme Court on Friday (October 16, 2026) asked the West Bengal government to provide Mamata All India Trinamool Congress (MAITC) MP Mahua Moitra accommodation at the government circuit house in Krishnanagar, her Lok Sabha constituency, on a day’s notice, instead of requiring three to four days’ advance intimation stipulated by the district administration.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that Ms. Moitra should be provided accommodation in accordance with the protocol and standard operating procedure (SOP) followed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled State, while asking her to intimate the authorities a day before her scheduled visit to the constituency.
The Bench also flagged that disputes of this nature ought not to require the top court’s intervention through a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which provides a remedy for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
“All that is required is a standard operating procedure (SOP), outlining an advance notice and a nodal officer to whom some personal assistant of the MP can reach out... If mutual decency and decorum is followed, then these things wouldn’t have come here,” the Bench said.
The court suggested putting in place a protocol governing visits by MPs to their constituencies, particularly in view of the upcoming festive season.
Ms. Moitra had approached the top court seeking guidelines to ensure cooperation from local authorities and the police during visits to her constituency and while undertaking development work under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).
Her petition cited a series of incidents which, she alleged, had impeded her ability to discharge her duties as an elected representative. Among them was an incident on the night of August 14, when she was allegedly asked to vacate the Nadia Circuit House even as a large crowd gathered outside the premises, abusing and threatening her. The petition alleged that her requests for police assistance went unanswered.
The incident was followed by a September 1 communication from the Nadia district administration requiring MPs and MLAs to give at least three to four days’ advance notice to avail themselves of accommodation in government guest houses. It further stated that allotment would depend on the situation prevailing at the time.
Cannot be subject to availability
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, disputed the allegations of harassment and told the Bench that the September 1 communication applied uniformly to MPs, MLAs and government officials seeking official accommodation. He pointed out that rooms could be provided only subject to availability.
“On several occasions, persons arrive at the last minute seeking accommodation, and every effort is made to accommodate them if rooms are available. However, difficulties and conflicts may arise when all rooms have already been occupied, and other persons seek accommodation at the last minute,” he said.
The Bench, however, was not persuaded that Ms. Moitra’s claim to accommodation should depend solely on the availability of rooms. It also observed that the September 1 communication, issued in the wake of the August incident and requiring up to four days’ advance notice, appeared “retaliatory”, and indicated that the State may have to withdraw it.
When Mr. Mehta urged the Bench to make availability a precondition for providing accommodation, the court pointed out that circuit houses were meant for official purposes and that accommodation requests could be prioritised accordingly.
“She will have a preferential right to stay there because she is the representative of that constituency. There have been instances, not unknown, that people have been asked to vacate. We are not making a new law,” the Bench said.
‘No cooperation from local authorities’
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Ms. Moitra, told the Bench that she had been in public life for nearly a decade and had stayed at the circuit house on several occasions without giving prior notice. He also pointed out that at present, four rooms at the circuit house were occupied, but none of the occupants had been asked to vacate.
“You can’t weaponise availability like this,” Mr. Sankaranarayanan said.
He also alleged that the district administration had stopped cooperating with Ms. Moitra in the implementation of MPLADS projects after May 2026, leaving 18 projects stalled.
Mr. Mehta objected to the submission, arguing that such disputes were not matters an MP could seek to resolve through an Article 32 petition before the Supreme Court. “Your political problems can’t be solved in an Article 32 petition before this court,” he said.
The Bench declined to examine the grievance over the stalled projects and asked Ms. Moitra to make a representation to the district administration. It granted her liberty to approach the High Court if the authorities failed to respond.
Ms. Moitra has argued in her petition that government authorities cannot impede an elected representative from carrying out duties in her constituency or deny her official assistance on account of her political affiliation. She has also sought a framework requiring local authorities to act impartially while facilitating constituency visits and development work.
Both the State and the Centre have questioned the maintainability of the plea. Mr. Mehta had earlier argued that permitting MPs to approach the Supreme Court directly over individual grievances could open the door to similar petitions.