Calcutta High Court Denies Abhishek Banerjee Permission for Overseas Medical Travel

DNI SUMMARY — KEY POINTS

• The Calcutta High Court officially dismissed the plea of Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee seeking permission to travel abroad for specialized eye treatment.
• Justice Saugata Bhattacharya ruled against the travel request after the petitioner refused to appear before a state-run medical board at SSKM Hospital.
• The court emphasized that establishing the necessity of foreign medical intervention through independent local evaluation remains a primary condition for any travel clearance.
• State authorities successfully argued that ongoing criminal investigations and the lack of an immediate medical emergency necessitate keeping the petitioner within India.
• The legal standoff follows a Supreme Court directive that instructed the High Court to resolve the pending travel application within a one-week period.

The Calcutta High Court delivered a significant judicial setback to Abhishek Banerjee on Wednesday, formally rejecting his petition for permission to travel overseas for ophthalmic medical treatment. The ruling, presided over by Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, concluded that the Trinamool Congress general secretary could not be granted authorization to leave the country after he explicitly declined to undergo a medical examination by a state-appointed board at Kolkata’s SSKM Hospital. This decision marks a definitive end to his current attempt to secure international medical intervention for his ongoing eye condition.

Court Rejects Medical Travel Plea

Judicial oversight of the matter hinges on the court's insistence that domestic healthcare facilities must be exhausted before permitting international travel for individuals under legal scrutiny. The court observed that its primary concern is the effective treatment of the petitioner, irrespective of the geographic location of the medical facility. By refusing to comply with the court’s direction to consult experts at SSKM Hospital, the petitioner effectively halted the judicial process, leading the bench to dismiss his plea in its entirety rather than considering it on merit.

Arguments presented by Rebecca John, appearing for the petitioner, centered on the fundamental right of a patient to choose their preferred physician and institution for continuity of care. The defense underscored that their client had previously traveled abroad twelve times between 2023 and 2025 without incident, and argued that the proposed visit to Johns Hopkins Medicine was a matter of medical necessity. Despite these contentions, the legal team faced intense opposition from state representatives regarding the necessity of foreign travel during active, complex litigation.

Standoff Over Medical Evaluation

State officials maintained a firm stance throughout the proceedings, highlighting the gravity of the pending criminal cases against the MP. Representing the state government, Rajdeep Majumder argued that no verifiable emergency existed that would mandate immediate foreign travel. The state underscored that the petitioner’s presence remains critical for the ongoing investigations related to several FIRs, and suggested that the court should prioritize the continuity of judicial processes over the personal preference for overseas medical clinics for treatment.

The procedural history of this dispute involves multiple levels of the Indian judiciary, including a recent intervention by the Supreme Court. Earlier in the week, a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, and other justices had directed the High Court to dispose of the matter within seven days. This directive compelled the lower court to expedite the hearing, which ultimately culminated in the current dismissal following the petitioner’s refusal to allow a local medical board to review his health status.

Legal Arguments And State Opposition

Interim protection orders granted to the petitioner have historically been contingent upon strict adherence to court-mandated conditions, including the requirement to obtain judicial consent prior to any exit from India. The court’s latest order reinforces the principle that such protections are not absolute and are subject to oversight, particularly when a petitioner seeks to modify terms to leave the jurisdiction. This dynamic illustrates the tension between individual liberty rights and the court’s responsibility to ensure accountability in ongoing criminal prosecutions.

Public reaction and media coverage of the ruling highlight the polarization surrounding the high-profile case involving the Diamond Harbour MP. While supporters frame the restriction as an unnecessary hurdle to receiving essential medical care, critics of the political figure emphasize the importance of equality before the law, noting that judicial clearance should be earned through transparency. The rejection of the plea is seen by many legal observers as a reaffirmation of the court's authority to mandate domestic medical evaluations in high-stakes cases.

Future Of The Legal Dispute

The future of the petitioner's medical journey remains uncertain following the closure of this specific legal avenue. By dismissing the case, the court has signaled that the path to seeking international treatment is effectively blocked unless the petitioner agrees to the court's conditions regarding medical verification. It remains to be seen whether the defense will challenge this latest order in a higher forum or if the focus will now shift to addressing the medical requirements through alternative channels within India.