Supreme Court Disposes of Mahua Moitra’s Plea Over Circuit House Stay, MPLADS Projects

Moitra had approached the apex court over what she described as her late-night eviction from the Circuit House in August 2026 and a subsequent circular issued by the Nadia district administration on September 1. The circular required MPs and MLAs from the district to provide three to four days’ advance notice when seeking accommodation at the facility.

During the hearing, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Moitra, told a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that the circular unfairly targeted the Krishnanagar MP. He argued that she had previously secured accommodation with considerably shorter notice.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the authorities, disputed the allegations. He submitted that the Circuit House was undergoing maintenance during the relevant period and that authorities had offered alternative accommodation to the MP.

The bench observed that the requirement of three to four days’ advance notice appeared retaliatory and took into account Moitra’s position as the elected representative of the Lok Sabha constituency.

The Supreme Court subsequently modified the September 1 circular, directing Moitra to inform the district administration one day before her visit. Accommodation would then be provided in accordance with the applicable protocol.

The court also rejected the state’s contention that accommodation should be provided only subject to availability, holding that Moitra would have a preferential right to stay at the Circuit House as the elected representative of the constituency.

The petition also raised concerns over the alleged non-cooperation of the district administration in implementing MPLADS-funded development work. Moitra’s counsel told the court that 18 projects had remained pending since May 2026.

On this issue, the Supreme Court asked the district administration to examine the grievance and take appropriate steps. It also granted Moitra the liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court if she remained dissatisfied with the action taken.

With these directions, the apex court disposed of the petition.