📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Destination.abhishek
Politics
Calcutta High Court questions West Bengal on six‑month lapse in Abhishek Banerjee's Z+ security review
✍️ India Today
🗓 12 Nov 2026, 07:16 PM
👁 9
The Calcutta High Court has asked the West Bengal government to explain why a security review for MP Abhishek Banerjee's Z+ cover has not been conducted for six months.
The Calcutta High Court has issued a notice to the West Bengal government seeking an explanation for the six‑month delay in reviewing the Z+ security cover granted to Trinamool Congress leader and Lok Sabha MP Abhishek Banerjee. The court noted that the periodic security assessment, which is mandatory for holders of the highest protection level, has not been undertaken since the last review six months ago.
Abhishek Banerjee, a close aide of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, currently enjoys Z+ protection, the most stringent security arrangement in India. The court's query underscores the importance of regular security audits to ensure the adequacy of personnel and resources allocated for such high‑risk individuals.
The West Bengal administration has been asked to submit a detailed report on the status of the review, the reasons for the delay, and any corrective measures planned. The matter will be heard in a subsequent hearing, where the court will decide whether further action is required.
No response from the state government has been recorded at the time of reporting. The issue highlights procedural oversight concerns in the handling of security provisions for senior political figures.
Abhishek Banerjee, a close aide of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, currently enjoys Z+ protection, the most stringent security arrangement in India. The court's query underscores the importance of regular security audits to ensure the adequacy of personnel and resources allocated for such high‑risk individuals.
The West Bengal administration has been asked to submit a detailed report on the status of the review, the reasons for the delay, and any corrective measures planned. The matter will be heard in a subsequent hearing, where the court will decide whether further action is required.
No response from the state government has been recorded at the time of reporting. The issue highlights procedural oversight concerns in the handling of security provisions for senior political figures.