Calcutta HC Orders Abhishek Banerjee Voice Sample in 'DJ Remark' Case

The Calcutta High Court, on Friday, July 10, 2026, issued a directive to Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee, instructing him to appear before a jurisdictional magistrate by July 15, 2026, at 12 noon, to provide his voice sample in connection with the ongoing 'DJ remark' case. The court, presided over by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, sternly admonished Banerjee for his repeated delays and non-cooperation with the investigation, emphasizing that his earlier interim protection from coercive action was expressly conditional upon his active assistance. The 'DJ remark' case originated from comments allegedly made by Abhishek Banerjee during his campaign for the West Bengal Assembly elections. He reportedly stated that after the election results were declared, celebratory 'DJ music would be played so loud that it would make people's ears ring.' This statement was perceived by a complainant, Rajib Sarkar, as intimidatory and provocative, leading to a First Information Report (FIR) being registered against Banerjee by the Bidhannagar police commissionerate under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Representation of the People Act. The investigation was subsequently taken over by the state's Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Abhishek Banerjee had previously sought exemption from providing his voice sample or challenged the magistrate's order directing its collection. His counsel, Ayan Bhattacharjee, had argued that Banerjee was not disputing the authenticity of the alleged voice recording, stating, 'I am not disputing my voice, I am admitting it.' However, Justice Bhattacharyya underscored that merely admitting the voice did not absolve him of the obligation to cooperate fully with the investigation. The court noted that Banerjee had failed to respond to multiple summonses despite enjoying interim protection granted by the High Court until July 31, 2026. During the hearing on July 10, Justice Bhattacharyya expressed strong displeasure at Banerjee's conduct, verbally observing that it amounted to 'an abuse of due process of court' and a 'ploy to frustrate the investigation.' He cautioned that continued non-cooperation could lead to the recall of the interim protection order and dismissal of Banerjee's plea seeking to quash the proceedings, potentially with exemplary costs. Following the court's stringent observations, Banerjee's counsel sought and was granted permission to withdraw his criminal revision petition challenging the magistrate's order. An interesting aspect of the court's directive was the instruction to the police to ensure Banerjee's safety during his appearance. His counsel had specifically requested that police prevent any harassment, including physical attacks or 'egg-pelting,' when he attends the Bidhannagar magistrate court. This concern for safety highlights the politically charged atmosphere surrounding the case in West Bengal, where political figures have faced such incidents in the past. The Additional Advocate General of the state assured the court that appropriate measures would be taken to maintain law and order and prevent any untoward incidents. This development is significant as it compels a prominent political figure to comply with an investigative demand, reinforcing the judiciary's role in ensuring due process and cooperation in criminal probes. The case is part of a broader political landscape in West Bengal, where the TMC, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and the opposition, including the BJP, are often locked in intense political contests. The CID's investigation, which also summoned BJP MLA Bikkarna Naskar as a witness, seeks to determine if Abhishek Banerjee's 'DJ remark' incited any unrest or violence, particularly in light of an alleged assault on Naskar on election results day. The High Court's clear directive marks a critical step in the ongoing legal proceedings, emphasizing accountability and the rule of law, irrespective of political stature. The July 15, 2026, deadline for providing the voice sample is a crucial date in this high-profile case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest