Calcutta High Court Seeks Suvendu Adhikari’s Reply On Mamata Banerjee’s Election Challenge

Calcutta High Court Seeks Suvendu Adhikari’s Reply On Mamata Banerjee’s Election Challenge

The Calcutta High Court has sought Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari’s response to Mamata Banerjee’s petition challenging his Bhabanipur election victory. The court refused to dismiss the plea at the preliminary stage, ordered preservation of CCTV footage and EVM records, and will hear the matter after respondents file their replies.

Vinay MishraUpdated: Tuesday, June 23, 2026, 06:28 PM IST
Calcutta High Court Seeks Suvendu Adhikari’s Reply On Mamata Banerjee’s Election Challenge
Calcutta High Court | Government of West Bengal

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday sought a response from Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari on an election petition filed by former Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee challenging his victory from the Bhabanipur Assembly constituency.

Justice Gaurang Kanth observed that the petition prima facie met the requirements laid down under the Representation of the People Act and found no grounds for its dismissal at this stage. The court directed the respondents to file their affidavits within four weeks, with a rejoinder to follow in the subsequent four weeks, and listed the matter for hearing after 12 weeks.

The High Court also ordered that CCTV footage from the counting centre, along with the electronic voting machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units used across Bhabanipur polling stations, be preserved pending further proceedings.

Before taking up the matter, Justice Kanth disclosed that his elder brother serves as a national spokesperson for the BJP, stating that he wished to make the relationship known to avoid any future concerns regarding impartiality. Counsel for Banerjee expressed confidence in the judge and raised no objection to his hearing the case.

Banerjee’s legal team alleged irregularities during vote counting, questioned the appointment of the returning officer due to an alleged conflict of interest, and claimed that a significant number of voters had been improperly removed from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision process.