Contempt Plea Withdrawal Against Mamata Banerjee: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday allowed the withdrawal of a criminal contempt plea against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, after the petitioner informed the bench that Attorney General of India R. Venkataramani had refused to grant mandatory consent for the initiation of such proceedings. The case, which revolved around Banerjee’s alleged remarks on the 2016 School Service Commission (SLST) teacher recruitment case, has once again brought to the forefront the delicate balance between freedom of speech and respect for judicial authority.
The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, recorded the petitioner’s submission and allowed the plea to be withdrawn. “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. Permission is granted. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn,” the court stated.
Background: Why the Contempt Plea Was Filed
The plea was filed by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) named Aatmadeep, alleging that Banerjee’s public comments following the Supreme Court’s verdict in the SLST-2016 case amounted to scandalising the judiciary. The NGO contended that her remarks had the potential to lower public confidence in the judiciary, which constitutes criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The controversy originated after the Supreme Court, in April 2025, upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision to cancel over 23,000 appointments of teachers and non-teaching staff in government-aided schools due to irregularities in the selection process. The judgment had caused widespread protests across West Bengal, especially among job aspirants who had been waiting for appointments for years.
In the aftermath of the verdict, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee reportedly made comments questioning the fairness of the recruitment cancellation and expressed concern for the affected candidates. The petitioner alleged that her remarks were “derogatory towards the judiciary” and intended to “influence public perception against the Court’s decision.”
However, before any criminal contempt case could proceed, the petitioner was required to obtain the consent of the Attorney General, as mandated under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Contempt Plea Withdrawal Against Mamata Banerjee: Attorney General’s Decision to Deny Consent
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, after reviewing the matter, declined to grant permission for initiating contempt proceedings against the Chief Minister. His decision effectively ended the possibility of the case being heard on its merits, since the consent of the AG or Solicitor General is a mandatory procedural requirement in such cases.
The Attorney General’s role in contempt matters serves as a constitutional safeguard to ensure that only serious and substantiated cases reach the Court. This helps prevent the misuse of contempt powers for political or personal vendettas.
Following the AG’s refusal, the petitioner informed the Supreme Court that they wished to withdraw the plea. The bench then allowed the withdrawal and closed the case.
Supreme Court’s Caution Against Politicising Contempt
During previous hearings, the Supreme Court had expressed clear reservations about turning contempt proceedings into political battlegrounds. The bench had earlier remarked, “Are you sure you will get consent? Don’t politicise such issues,” signalling its reluctance to entertain contempt pleas that may have underlying political motives.
Legal experts believe the Court’s approach underscores its commitment to preserving judicial sanctity while preventing its processes from being used for political gains.
Political Context: The SLST-2016 Case Fallout
The School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment scam has been one of the most politically sensitive cases in West Bengal in recent years. The alleged irregularities in the SLST-2016 recruitment drive led to widespread protests by job seekers and sharp criticism of the state government.
When the Calcutta High Court cancelled the recruitment, and the Supreme Court later upheld that decision, it dealt a major blow to the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC), which has been under pressure to address public anger over the issue.
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, known for her fiery political rhetoric, defended the affected candidates and blamed “administrative lapses” for the irregularities. Her comments, however, were interpreted by the petitioner as an attack on the judiciary, sparking the contempt plea.
The withdrawal of the plea after the AG’s refusal is now being viewed as a significant legal victory for Banerjee, easing the political heat around her statements.
Legal Significance: Consent as a Constitutional Filter
The refusal of consent by the Attorney General highlights the importance of procedural safeguards in contempt cases. Under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, no private citizen can directly file a criminal contempt petition in the Supreme Court or High Court without prior consent from the Attorney General (for the Supreme Court) or Advocate General (for High Courts).
This ensures that the judiciary’s contempt powers—among the most serious in law—are exercised only in exceptional situations. Legal scholars have long emphasised that criminal contempt must be invoked sparingly, to maintain a balance between protecting the dignity of courts and preserving citizens’ right to free expression.
Dr. P.K. Singh, a constitutional law professor at the National Law University, remarked, “The AG’s refusal in this case reaffirms that the law protects against the indiscriminate use of contempt provisions. Courts must remain open to criticism, but they cannot be platforms for political duels.”
Expert Reactions: The Thin Line Between Criticism and Contempt
Legal experts and political analysts have pointed out that criticism of judgments—even sharp criticism—is not necessarily contempt, unless it impedes the administration of justice or lowers public confidence in the judiciary.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, in a past commentary on contempt law, noted that “the judiciary’s power of contempt is not meant to silence legitimate dissent or opinion.” She has argued that democratic accountability demands tolerance of fair criticism.
The Supreme Court’s restraint in this case aligns with that philosophy. By permitting withdrawal and acknowledging the AG’s refusal, the Court has avoided turning the matter into a prolonged legal or political spectacle.
Political Implications for Mamata Banerjee
The withdrawal of the contempt plea comes as a relief for Mamata Banerjee, whose government continues to face pressure from opposition parties over issues ranging from recruitment scams to flood management and administrative lapses.
Political observers say this outcome allows Banerjee to maintain her stance as a leader who speaks “for the people,” without facing legal repercussions for her statements. It also neutralises attempts by opponents to paint her as being in contempt of court.
For the Trinamool Congress, the episode underscores Banerjee’s resilient political image—a leader often at odds with central authorities but capable of navigating legal and institutional challenges.
A Broader Reflection on Judicial Accountability and Free Speech
The episode also reignites the broader debate over how public officials can comment on judicial verdicts without crossing into contempt. While the judiciary must be protected from vilification, it also must remain open to constructive criticism—a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Several constitutional scholars have suggested the need for clearer guidelines on contempt jurisdiction, particularly regarding political speech. They argue that the line between contempt and dissent remains blurred, often depending on context and interpretation.
Conclusion: A Case Study in Balance Between Law and Politics
The withdrawal of the contempt plea against Mamata Banerjee illustrates how judicial restraint, constitutional safeguards, and procedural diligence can prevent the misuse of legal provisions for political purposes.
By adhering strictly to the statutory requirement of AG consent and allowing withdrawal without commentary on the merits, the Supreme Court has reinforced its commitment to maintaining neutrality and upholding due process.
The case also sends a message to political actors that while free expression is their right, responsibility and decorum in commenting on judicial matters are essential to sustaining public faith in the rule of law.
For reference on legal frameworks and institutional roles:
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Ministry of Law and Justice
- Supreme Court of India – Official Website
- Department of Justice, Government of India
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
