Kolkata witnessed a dramatic escalation in the ongoing political tussle between Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Kalyan Banerjee and West Bengal Governor C.V. Ananda Bose on Wednesday, as Banerjee lodged a counter police complaint against the state’s Constitutional head at the Hare Street Police Station, barely a day after Bose filed an FIR against him at the same station. The new development adds another layer of complexity to the face-off, intensifying an already high-profile political confrontation.

Banerjee, through his legal representatives, submitted the counter-complaint seeking action under multiple provisions of the Bengal National Security Statute (BNS), including sections addressing criminal conspiracy and acts endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity. The TMC MP alleged that Governor Bose, “in agreement with some unknown politically motivated persons having common object, intentionally, willfully, deliberately and purposely made statements to excite rebellion and/or subversive activities” and encouraged sentiments that could promote separatist activities against the state and central government.

This move by Banerjee comes a day after Bose, in his FIR, had accused the MP under several sections of the BNS, including provisions addressing assault or wrongful restraint of a state governor or the President with the intent to prevent them from exercising their lawful powers, as well as acts that endanger the sovereignty and integrity of India. Bose’s FIR followed a high-profile search operation at the Raj Bhavan premises, which was live-streamed and conducted to verify Banerjee’s earlier claims about the presence of weapons and ammunition at the Governor’s residence. The Raj Bhavan officials subsequently stated that no evidence corroborating Banerjee’s allegations had been found during the search.

In his counter complaint, Banerjee referred to various media reports citing past public statements by Bose, accusing the Governor of interfering in West Bengal’s electoral processes. He claimed that Bose had “wantonly given provocation to a particular religious community to cause riot and promote enmity among people.” The Serampore MP further alleged that the Governor had made “false, fabricated, and politically motivated statements” targeting the state police and issued “baseless and irresponsible statements from the corridors of Raj Bhavan” with the aim of instilling fear and alarm among the public.

Banerjee’s filing also sought police scrutiny of what he termed “off-record and unofficial links, conversations and meetings between Bose and the criminals, disguised as political leaders.” According to the MP, these alleged connections highlighted a coordinated effort to incite violence in West Bengal by promoting enmity among different religious groups and public factions. He underscored the importance of investigating the participation of a senior official attached to the Governor’s secretariat, asserting that this official may have been complicit in the alleged criminal acts orchestrated by Bose.

The TMC MP’s complaint portrays the conflict not merely as a legal battle but as part of a broader political confrontation, raising questions about the neutrality of the Governor’s office in the state’s governance and law enforcement. Banerjee emphasized the need for an impartial investigation to uncover the “real conspirators behind the criminal acts of CV Ananda Bose,” framing his complaint as a countermeasure to what he perceives as politically motivated legal action initiated by the Governor.

The exchange of complaints between the TMC MP and the Governor highlights the growing tension between political authorities and constitutional officials in West Bengal. The escalation follows months of public statements and allegations from both sides, creating a charged environment in which the roles of law enforcement, political influence, and constitutional oversight intersect.

While Bose’s FIR focused on Banerjee’s purported attempt to compel or intimidate a constitutional authority, Banerjee’s counter-filing reverses the narrative, presenting the Governor as the instigator of actions that could undermine public order and state governance. Both filings rely heavily on claims of conspiracy and the alleged promotion of communal tensions, indicating the politicized nature of the dispute.

The ongoing dispute also raises broader questions about the mechanisms of accountability and oversight available to elected representatives and constitutional functionaries. Banerjee’s insistence on police investigation into the Governor’s activities signals an attempt to involve law enforcement in resolving what has become a high-profile political and administrative confrontation. Similarly, Bose’s initial FIR underscores the vulnerabilities and legal avenues available to constitutional authorities in cases of perceived threats to their office.

Observers note that the rapid sequence of filings—Bose’s FIR followed within 24 hours by Banerjee’s counter complaint—demonstrates the intensifying stakes in the face-off. Analysts suggest that the matter could have significant implications for the political landscape of West Bengal, particularly in terms of how elected representatives interact with and challenge constitutional officeholders.

The situation remains fluid, and both complaints are likely to undergo thorough scrutiny by the Hare Street Police Station. Investigations will involve reviewing statements, corroborating media reports, and potentially examining the role of administrative officials associated with Raj Bhavan. The legal proceedings stemming from these complaints could set precedents for how disputes between elected politicians and constitutional authorities are handled in West Bengal and potentially in other Indian states.

In conclusion, the Bose-Banerjee confrontation has taken a fresh turn with the filing of a counter complaint, intensifying a clash that blends legal, political, and administrative dimensions. The allegations, which encompass criminal conspiracy, interference in electoral processes, and acts threatening public order and state integrity, underscore the high-stakes nature of the dispute. As law enforcement examines both the Governor’s and the MP’s claims, the case is expected to remain under close public and media scrutiny, reflecting the complex interplay of politics and governance in the state.