Setback for TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee in Supreme Court over media reporting; BJP takes jibe

Bharatiya Janata Party IT cell head Amit Malviya on Saturday took a swipe at Abhishek Banerjee after the Supreme Court on Friday declined the Trinamool Congress MP’s request for a gag order restraining media coverage of the proceedings before a single judge of the Calcutta high court monitoring the investigation into an alleged multi-crore Bengal recruitment scam.

Reacting to the news, Amit Malviya, on social media X, wrote, “Abhishek Banerjee, West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee’s nephew, wanted media gagged, so that they can’t report on the Calcutta HC proceedings in the Recruitment Scam. Supreme Court rejected the plea. You steal but don’t want the world to know? Convenient.”

Live Law reported that during the hearing, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pressed for a “suspension of reportage”.

Sankaranarayanan also wanted the Supreme Court to restrain the media from reporting the matter. The advocate said Abhishek Banerjee’s “reputation is being torn to shreds” due to the media coverage, which is being exploited by the Opposition parties on social media.

Sankaranarayanan also cited a five-judge constitution bench directions in the Sahara Vs Sebi case wherein the top court had passed certain guidelines on media coverage of legal matters.

The bench, comprising justices Sanjiv Khann and SVN Bhatti, however, refused to issue the order, with justice Khanna explaining that the law on the scope of judicial interference in investigations was laid down in several judgments of the Supreme Court, the report added.

“The petitioner would be satisfied in case an order for suspension of reportage is passed. He relies upon a decision of this court in Sahara v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012). The question of court interference or jurisdiction was examined by the division bench of the Calcutta High Court in the judgment dated October 5. We have also passed an order on December 8. The law on this subject has been clarified by this court in numerous decisions. We wish to also clarify that the parties are bound by the orders passed by the court. Learned Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement, states that they are bound by orders of the court and in case, any party is aggrieved by any direction given, it would be entitled to challenge the same in accordance with law. Recording the aforesaid, we are not inclined to pass further directions or orders at this stage. The application is disposed of,” the order said.

“We would also like to clarify that if the applicant has any grievance, he must approach the division bench of the high court before approaching this court,” the bench added.