New Delhi, Oct. 16: The Supreme Court on Friday modified a Nadia district administration communication requiring Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra to give three to four days’ advance notice before seeking accommodation at the Krishnanagar Circuit House, holding that a day’s intimation would suffice. It also asked the district administration to examine her complaints over alleged delays in implementing development works under the MPLADS.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said disputes of this nature should not reach the Supreme Court and suggested a standard operating procedure for allotment of circuit houses and government guest houses to MPs and other eligible public functionaries.
“These are not issues which, in fact, should come to the Court. Probably what we require is only a small SOP,” the CJI observed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the September 1 communication was a general administrative measure meant to streamline accommodation arrangements and was not directed specifically at Moitra. He said difficulties arose when dignitaries sought rooms at short notice after available accommodation had already been occupied.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, submitted that she had routinely obtained accommodation at the Circuit House for nearly a decade on a few hours’ notice and contended that the later communication had effectively singled her out.
Mehta offered to withdraw the communication and replace it with a general SOP applicable to all eligible persons. The court indicated that the framework should take into account both availability of rooms and precedence under the applicable protocol.
The case arose from Moitra’s allegation that she was asked to leave the Krishnanagar Circuit House in the middle of the night on August 14 despite having been allotted accommodation. The district administration maintained that maintenance work was underway and alternative government accommodation had been offered.
The bench also considered Moitra’s grievance that several MPLADS projects in her Krishnanagar constituency had remained stalled. Sankaranarayanan said 18 projects had been held up since May 2026 and that the district administration had cited work relating to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
Mehta opposed judicial intervention in the implementation of MPLADS projects.
The court declined to adjudicate that dispute, but asked the Nadia district administration to consider Moitra’s representations and take appropriate steps. It said that if she remained aggrieved, she could approach the jurisdictional High Court.
Pramod kumar is a Senior Journalist, Covering Supreem Court of India
