The single bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharya asked Ayan Bhattacharya, the Lok Sabha MP’s lawyer, why Banerjee did not appear before a lower court and give his voice sample, although his bench had earlier directed that police would not take any coercive action until July 31 if Banerjee cooperated with the investigators.

The court directed Banerjee to provide his voice sample on July 15 after hearing his petition seeking exemption from recording it. Banerjee’s lawyer withdrew the petition after the court made several strong observations.

“There should be a limit to everything. I have already given protection subject to cooperation. I will withdraw the protection. I will dismiss it (Banerjee’s petition) with exemplary cost. Will you withdraw this application or not? It is an abuse of the due process of the court,” Justice Saugata Bhattacharya remarked during the hearing.

The Bidhannagar police commissionerate registered a first information report (FIR) on May 15 against Banerjee on charges of making provocative remarks in some of his election campaign speeches. The videos were widely shared on social media. The FIR, a copy of which HT saw, was registered under four sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and two sections of the Representation of the People Act. Two of the charges are non-bailable.

The investigation was later taken over by the state Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which questioned Banerjee on June 16 at its Kolkata headquarters for around 6.5 hours.

The complaint was registered at the Cyber Crime police station in Bidhannagar based on a written complaint lodged by Rajib Sarkar, a local resident, on May 5, a day after the Bharatiya Janata Party defeated the TMC in the Assembly polls. Sarkar alleged that Banerjee made objectionable remarks against Union ministers and rival parties.

When Ayan Bhattacharya told the court on Friday that Banerjee did not dispute that the voice in the videos was his, the court observed that this did not mean that Banerjee would not cooperate with the investigators.

Banerjee’s lawyer argued that the protection from coercive police action, previously granted by Justice Bhattacharya’s bench, did not prevent Banerjee from challenging the lower court’s direction to collect his voice sample.

Reacting to this, Justice Bhattacharya said, “Steps taken in connection with the investigation authority to record the voice sample come under the jurisdiction of my order. You are bound to cooperate with the investigation.”

“We granted protection subject to compliance with the investigation agency. This is a ploy to frustrate the investigation after getting an order from us,” the judge observed.

The issue of eggs being pelted at Trinamool Congress leaders by unruly mobs since the election results were announced on May 4 also came up during the hearing.

Ayan Bhattacharya told the court that Banerjee would appear before the lower court to submit his voice sample, but he needed protection from the egg pelters.

The court directed the state’s additional advocate general, Rajdeep Majumdar, to ensure that protection is provided to Banerjee.