New Delhi: In a significant development in the high-profile election petition case (EP-5-2024) against Trinamool Congress leader and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee, the Hon’ble Court has fixed August 19, 2025 as the final deadline for filing a reply, refusing to grant further time extensions.
This comes after Banerjee sought time for the third consecutive instance through his legal counsel, citing health-related travel abroad as the reason for his absence.
Third Time Extension Raises Questions
Abhishek Banerjee, who secured victory in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Diamond Harbour with a margin of over seven lakh votes, has been facing an election petition challenging the legitimacy of his win. The petitioner, Abhijit Das (Bobby), a BJP candidate and rival in the same constituency, has raised concerns regarding the delay in the case.
“This is the third time the respondent has asked for more time. If the victory was truly democratic and fair, then why the reluctance to provide a straightforward reply, even after a year?” questioned Das. He further expressed his concern that the delay seems to be a deliberate attempt to avoid judicial scrutiny.
Health Grounds for Absence
Banerjee’s counsel informed the court that the MP had traveled abroad for medical treatment and thus could not prepare or file the written reply.
However, this claim was met with skepticism from the petitioner, who pointed out the irony that a prominent leader who had championed high-quality public healthcare in the state now seemed to not rely on the same system for his own treatment.
“If the promoter of flagship schemes like ‘Duare Sarkar’ (Government at Your Doorstep) and ‘World-Class Healthcare for All’ could not trust his own government’s facilities, then what message does it send to the people?” Das asked rhetorically.
Petitioner Alleges Pattern of Delay
Abhijit Das described this ongoing delay as an orchestrated tactic to stall the legal process. “It appears my opponent is trying to escape. This is not just about one seat or one individual. It’s about upholding the truth of democratic processes,” he stated.
Das emphasized that he is not only a petitioner but also a citizen seeking clarity on whether the democratic mandate in Diamond Harbour was influenced through unlawful means. He suspects administrative pressure, fraudulent tactics, and misuse of official machinery during the election process.
“If the answer is so simple, then why has it not been given even after a full year? The court has been more than patient,” he added.
Court Sets Final Deadline
In a strong observation, the Hon’ble Judge made it clear in today’s hearing that no further extensions would be granted. The court has now scheduled the next hearing for August 19, 2025, with strict instructions for the respondent to file a written reply before that date.
“This is the last date. No more delays,” the Judge remarked.
A Case of Wider Democratic Significance
Das believes that the outcome of this case will have broader ramifications. Drawing a historical parallel, he said, “This case could be one of the defining legal battles in post-independence India — perhaps the most important since the landmark judgment in the Indira Gandhi election case.”
He stressed that the fight is not personal, but one for transparency, accountability, and the integrity of Indian democracy.
“I believe truth is the strongest force in a democracy. We are committed to continue this legal fight with full resolve. I urge citizens to stay informed and support the cause,” he concluded.
Public Support and Democratic Vigilance
In his concluding remarks shared with the media, Das called on people to remain vigilant and support the democratic process. “This case is not just mine. It will set a precedent for the future. I am only asking you to stand with the truth.”
The legal and political circles are now closely watching the proceedings. With the court’s ultimatum in place, all eyes are set on whether Abhishek Banerjee will respond within the stipulated timeline — and if the case will proceed to full hearing on its substantive merits.
