Published: Jan 18, 2026

Kolkata: West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Saturday appealed to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to safeguard the Constitution, democracy, and the judiciary from what she described as a growing “disaster” in public governance and legal processes. Speaking at the inauguration of a new building at the Jalpaiguri circuit bench of the Calcutta High Court, Banerjee highlighted what she sees as rising attempts by media and central agencies to malign political figures and influence public perception before cases are legally resolved.

Addressing the gathering, which included Chief Justice Surya Kant and the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, Banerjee said, “My request to the Chief Justice and all the judges. Please see that our Constitution, democracy, safety and security, history, geography and our boundary are protected from disaster. Media shouldn’t engage in a media trial before a case is finalised (court delivers its judgment). This is a trend nowadays to malign the people. There are deliberate attempts by agencies to defame the people.”

She continued, “Please protect the people. I am not saying this for myself. Save democracy, the judiciary, the country and save the Constitution. We are under your custody. There is no above the judiciary.” Her remarks were widely interpreted as a direct response to recent confrontations between her party, the Trinamool Congress (TMC), and the central Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Context of ongoing legal confrontation

The CM’s appeal comes against the backdrop of a protracted legal battle between the ED and the West Bengal government. On January 8, the federal agency conducted searches at ten locations—six in West Bengal and four in Delhi—related to a money laundering investigation linked to alleged coal smuggling kingpin Anup Majee. Among the premises searched were the Salt Lake office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain.

During the searches, Banerjee herself entered Jain’s residence and reportedly removed documents and a laptop. She alleged that the ED had seized sensitive internal party documents, including the candidate list for the upcoming 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections. In turn, the ED accused Banerjee of interfering with their operation and removing evidence, prompting multiple petitions in the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court.

The situation has escalated into a highly public legal and political standoff, with both sides accusing each other of overreach and procedural violations. Senior BJP leader Rahul Sinha criticised the CM’s remarks, saying, “She is apprehensive of the outcome in the case in the Supreme Court. The media showed everything that happened on January 8. The chief minister herself said on camera that she had taken away laptop and documents. Now she is trying to play the victim card in front of the judges. She is actually saying this for herself.”

Call against media trials

Banerjee specifically raised concerns about media trials and public narratives that preempt legal adjudication. She argued that the media’s preemptive reporting often bypasses due process and risks damaging the reputation of individuals and institutions. By framing her remarks as a plea to the judiciary, she positioned herself as an advocate for the broader principles of democracy, legal integrity, and citizen protection rather than a personal grievance, though political observers noted the timing of her statements in relation to the ongoing ED probe.

Focus on judicial capacity and support for young lawyers

In addition to addressing perceived external pressures, Banerjee also spoke about systemic challenges within the judiciary, particularly for junior lawyers. She urged Chief Justice Kant to ensure that new lawyers receive their due opportunities and benefits, highlighting the difficulties faced by the younger generation in accessing justice and career growth within the legal system.

Banerjee also took the occasion to showcase West Bengal’s efforts to strengthen the judicial infrastructure in the state. She noted that despite the central government halting funding for fast-track courts in West Bengal, her government had set up 88 such courts at a cost exceeding ₹1,200 crore. These included 52 women’s courts, seven POCSO courts for child protection, four labour courts, and 19 human rights courts. She claimed that the new Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench building was “better than the Calcutta High Court (building),” signaling both investment in infrastructure and commitment to improving judicial access across the state.

Political undertones

While Banerjee framed her statements as a defense of democratic principles and judicial independence, political analysts noted that they also carried significant political undertones. The TMC has been in direct conflict with central agencies in the past, often framing such interventions as politically motivated actions aimed at weakening the party ahead of elections. The January 8 searches and subsequent public controversies over the alleged removal of documents and laptops were seen by party loyalists as emblematic of this pattern.

By addressing the Chief Justice directly at a high-profile public event, Banerjee sought to elevate the issue from partisan politics to one of institutional and constitutional concern. Her remarks underscored the perceived need for an independent judiciary capable of protecting democratic norms, maintaining due process, and ensuring that political actors are not unfairly targeted by agencies or media narratives.

Balancing governance and political messaging

Banerjee’s speech also combined a defense of judicial integrity with a presentation of her government’s achievements in the legal sector. By highlighting the number and specialization of fast-track courts established under her administration, she sought to reinforce the message that the West Bengal government is committed to improving access to justice, even in the absence of central support. This dual focus—defending the state against alleged interference while showcasing governance initiatives—illustrates a calculated effort to position her party as both a guardian of democratic principles and an effective administrative authority.

Implications

The Chief Minister’s remarks are likely to resonate both within judicial circles and among the public, particularly in West Bengal, where political polarization and central-state tensions have intensified in recent years. Her appeal to Chief Justice Kant could influence perceptions of judicial independence, the role of media in public discourse, and the appropriate boundaries for agency intervention in politically sensitive cases.

However, critics argue that by bringing ongoing legal disputes into public addresses, there is a risk of politicizing judicial processes. As the ED petitions continue in higher courts, observers will be closely watching whether the judiciary addresses the concerns raised by Banerjee regarding media trials and alleged targeting by agencies, and whether any procedural safeguards are reinforced to prevent similar controversies in the future.

Conclusion

Mamata Banerjee’s address at the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench reflects a complex intersection of governance, politics, and the judiciary in West Bengal. While she appealed for protection of constitutional and democratic norms, condemned media trials, and highlighted her government’s investments in judicial infrastructure, the backdrop of ongoing ED investigations and political contestation gives the speech significant contemporary relevance. It serves as both a plea for institutional safeguards and a strategic communication to her supporters, positioning the TMC as a defender of legal integrity and state autonomy amid central scrutiny.

Her remarks underline the delicate balance Indian leaders navigate between upholding constitutional principles, managing political narratives, and maintaining public trust in institutions—all against the backdrop of highly charged electoral and governance dynamics.