The Supreme Court on Friday directed that a West Bengal government communication requiring Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from Nadia district to give three to four days’ advance notice before seeking accommodation at a circuit house would not be given effect to.
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kany and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s plea alleging that the West Bengal government’s requirement of three to four days’ prior notice for MPs and MLAs seeking circuit house accommodation was unreasonable. The plea also raised allegations of non-cooperation by the Nadia district administration in implementing projects under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).
The Bench stressed that government accommodation must be allotted in accordance with the applicable protocol and a uniform standard operating procedure (SOP) should be framed for those entitled to such facilities.
During the hearing, the Court questioned the September 1, 2026 communication, observing that it appeared to target an individual MP.
“
“This 1st September, they are targeting one individual MP. And one MP, that letter needs to be withdrawn,” Justice Bagchi remarked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the communication was issued to facilitate logistical arrangements and streamline the process of requisitioning rooms. It was argued that government guest houses and circuit houses were intended for temporary stays and could not be treated as substitutes for residential quarters.
The State also denied that Mahua Moitra had been evicted from the Krishnanagar circuit house. Solicitor General submitted that the premises were undergoing maintenance and that she had been offered the option of shifting to another government guesthouse. It was further argued that no officer had physically approached her with a direction to vacate.
The Bench, however, indicated that a rigid advance-notice requirement was unnecessary and that an SOP could address logistical concerns without creating undue difficulty for elected representatives or other persons entitled to accommodation.
“
“There should be, at the same time, it’s not that one week, 10 days before notice is required to be issued. Maybe some SOP required. 48 hours or something, we said 48 hours,” the Court observed.
The Bench also observed that one day’s advance intimation could be sufficient to facilitate arrangements. It noted that rooms could be unavailable when requests were made at the last minute, but cautioned against using availability as a means of arbitrarily denying accommodation.
“
“You keep saying availability to deny me accommodation… if the Chief Justice comes, you are going to say we have a probation of that? You can’t weaponise availability like this,” Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted.
The Bench clarified that the procedure should apply to everyone entitled to such accommodation, rather than being restricted to MPs and MLAs. The Court also noted that accommodation could not be provided by displacing someone already occupying a room, emphasising that allotment must follow the applicable protocol.
Non-cooperation over MPLADS projects
Mahua Moitra also raised allegations that the district administration had failed to cooperate in implementing projects funded under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that 18 projects were pending and alleged that the administration had not acted on representations seeking cooperation. The projects included local development works, such as improvements to schools and facilities at bus stops.
The Bench noted that she had already approached the concerned authorities highlighting the alleged impediments in the implementation of the MPLADS projects and expressed confidence that the authorities would adequately address the issues. It granted her liberty to approach the High Court again if she remained dissatisfied with the resolution.