No foreign travel for Abhishek Banerjee: Calcutta High Court denies permission for eye treatment abroad

No Foreign Travel for Abhishek: High Court Denies Eye Treatment Petition

Theindiapostdaily.com – The Calcutta High Court has ruled that there will be no foreign travel for Abhishek Banerjee, dismissing his petition seeking permission to undergo specialized eye treatment abroad. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya delivered the verdict on 5 August, following a series of hearings that examined whether overseas medical care was truly necessary for the Trinamool Congress MP.

Medical Board Refusal Leads to Dismissal

Before finalizing its decision, the court directed Banerjee to appear before a medical panel at SSKM Hospital. This board was meant to assess whether his condition warranted treatment outside India. However, the politician’s legal representatives declined to attend the proceedings, a move that ultimately sealed the fate of his petition.

The court had initially proposed examining Banerjee on 6 August through the SSKM medical board. Justice Bhattacharyya emphasized that India’s medical infrastructure was adequate to handle urgent treatment requirements without requiring international travel.

Supreme Court’s Earlier Directive

This matter had previously reached the Supreme Court, which sent it back to the High Court for resolution. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard Banerjee’s appeal on 3 August and mandated that the Calcutta High Court resolve the issue within seven days. The High Court subsequently heard arguments from both sides on Wednesday before delivering its final judgment.

Legal Arguments and Counterarguments

Senior advocates Ayan Bhattacharya and Rebecca Mammen John presented Banerjee’s case during the hearings. Rebecca Mammen John noted that the MP had previously traveled abroad in connection with an Enforcement Directorate matter. She pointed out that the Additional Solicitor General had not objected to medical travel in similar instances before.

State counsel Rajdeep Majumdar countered that the Diamond Harbour MP was not specifically named in that earlier case. Rebecca further highlighted that the Supreme Court had previously permitted travel under PMLA notices. She documented that Banerjee had completed twelve overseas trips between 2023 and 2025.

One notable journey involved representing India’s government delegation after Operation Sindoor. Rebecca stressed that he had always returned within stipulated timeframes. According to her assessment, the risk of absconding remained low since his family lives in Kolkata. She also noted that Banerjee holds a diplomatic passport, enabling authorities to track his movements easily.

Court’s Reasoning and Final Decision

Justice Bhattacharyya expressed concerns about how cases involving Banerjee pending before him would proceed during a potential overseas stay. While recognizing the significance of the medical issue, the judge questioned whether international travel was genuinely essential.

“The important issue is not whether the treatment is abroad, but whether he receives proper treatment,” the judge stated, as quoted by Anandabazar.

“If the medical board concludes that this condition can be treated in India, then the treatment must be undertaken here. However, if the board finds that the treatment is not available in India, the request to travel abroad for treatment will be considered,” he added.

Banerjee’s lawyers argued that since he was not in custody, court permission was unnecessary for his travel. Rebecca explained that the MP wanted to continue treatment with his existing doctor in the United States. She contended that complications from earlier treatment in Kolkata had caused his current condition. Banerjee has already undergone two surgical procedures in America.

She requested permission for three weeks of travel, assuring that he would return eventually. According to her, individuals released on bail do not require board approval for their treatment decisions. Banerjee’s counsel maintained that selecting a doctor remained a personal choice.

Despite these arguments, the judge ultimately dismissed the case entirely. This decision followed the counsel’s repeated refusal to appear before the medical board. The defense had maintained throughout that permitting travel would not interfere with ongoing investigations, emphasizing Banerjee’s consistent cooperation with investigating agencies.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the Calcutta High Court deny Abhishek Banerjee’s petition?

The court denied the petition primarily because Banerjee’s legal team refused to attend the medical board proceedings at SSKM Hospital. The board was meant to evaluate whether overseas eye treatment was genuinely necessary. Without the board’s assessment, the court could not confirm that foreign treatment was essential.

What is the medical board requirement for Abhishek’s travel?

The SSKM Hospital medical board was tasked with examining whether Banerjee’s eye condition required treatment outside India. The court proposed examining him on 6 August. If the board determines that adequate treatment exists in India, he must receive it locally. Only if the board finds that Indian facilities cannot provide the necessary care will the travel petition be reconsidered.

Can Abhishek Banerjee travel abroad for other reasons?

Yes, the court’s decision specifically relates to his eye treatment petition. Banerjee has made twelve overseas trips between 2023 and 2025 for various purposes, including representing India’s government delegation. His diplomatic passport also facilitates easier tracking of his movements abroad.

What happens next after the court’s decision?

The SSKM medical board will examine Banerjee to determine if his condition can be treated in India. If the board concludes that Indian medical facilities can provide adequate treatment, he will receive care domestically. The court has indicated that if the board finds Indian treatment insufficient, the travel petition may be reconsidered.

How does the court view the risk of Abhishek absconding?

The court considers the risk of absconding to be minimal. Rebecca Mammen John highlighted that Banerjee’s family resides in Kolkata, and he has consistently returned within required timeframes during previous travels. Additionally, his diplomatic passport makes his international movements easily trackable by authorities.