Calcutta HC Dismisses Abhishek Banerjee's Plea to Travel Abroad for Eye Treatment After He Refuses Medical Board Examination

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya dismissed the application after Banerjee's counsel stated he would not appear before the medical board at SSKM Hospital directed by the Court.

The High Court at Calcutta on 5 August 2026 dismissed an application filed by Abhishek Banerjee seeking relaxation of a court-imposed travel restriction so that he could go abroad for eye treatment. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, sitting singly in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, had offered to resolve the medical question by directing Banerjee to appear before a medical board at SSKM Hospital the following morning. When his counsel informed the Court that Banerjee was unwilling to do so, Justice Bhattacharyya concluded that the application could not be kept pending and dismissed it. The matter had been taken up urgently following a direction from the Supreme Court on 3 August 2026 requesting the High Court to decide the application within one week.

The Travel Restriction and the Application Before the Court

The underlying writ petition, WPA 11489 of 2026, was filed by Abhishek Banerjee against the State of West Bengal. By an order dated 21 May 2026 in that petition, the High Court had imposed a condition that Banerjee shall not go abroad without leave of the Court. The present application, CAN 1 of 2026, sought relaxation of that condition.

Banerjee's case, argued by Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior Advocate, appearing on virtual mode, was that he needed to travel abroad for three weeks for treatment of his eye. Two sets of medical documents were placed before the Court: one dated 4 June 2026, at page 19 of the application, and records from Johns Hopkins Medicine, annexed from page 179 of the application. The submission was that the overseas trip was required for continuation of an ongoing course of treatment, not a new medical consultation.

Reliance was also placed on a Supreme Court order dated 28 July 2023 in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 2806–2807/2022 (Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. Etc. v Directorate of Enforcement). The petitioner contended that in similar circumstances following that order he had been permitted to travel abroad for treatment, and the present situation was identical.

The State's Opposition and the Complainant's Objection

Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents, opposed the application. He placed before the Court the scale of pending criminal proceedings against Banerjee. Apart from Bidhannagar Cyber Crime Police Station Case No. 75/2026 dated 15 May 2026 — the case in connection with which the order of 21 May 2026 was passed — the State submitted that fifteen other criminal prosecutions had been registered against Banerjee, bringing the total to sixteen.

The State further pointed out that in four of those sixteen cases, different courts including the High Court were already examining the propriety of the prosecutions. Those four cases were: Kalitala Ashuti Police Station Case No. 140/26 dated 16 June 2026; Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 668/26 dated 16 June 2026; Hare Street Police Station Case No. 98/26 dated 27 May 2026; and Bhawanipore Police Station Case No. 121 dated 27 May 2026.

On the medical material, the State submitted that the document dated 4 June 2026 did not disclose any emergent medical situation requiring immediate treatment abroad. The advocate for the de facto complainant in the Bidhannagar case went further, arguing that the document should not be given credence because the physician who issued it had not indicated his registration number as a registered medical practitioner.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Bhattacharyya declined to accept the analogy drawn from the 2023 Supreme Court order. The Court observed that the situation before it was different because of the simultaneous pendency of writ petitions and a Criminal Revisional Application, combined with ongoing investigations across several criminal prosecutions. That made the present facts distinct from what had come before the Supreme Court in the earlier Directorate of Enforcement proceedings.

The Court also addressed the petitioner's argument that it was his right to choose his doctor and the medical establishment where he was to be treated. Justice Bhattacharyya acknowledged the submission but said the Court could not brush aside the subsisting situation given the pendency of several criminal prosecutions, including five in connection with which three matters were before the High Court. In connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 98/26, a Criminal Revisional Application being CRR No. 2240/2026 was pending before a coordinate Bench, and Banerjee was enjoying protection subject to cooperation with investigation. A separate writ petition, WPA 15412 of 2026, relating to the Bhowanipore, Kalitala, and Bishnupur cases was listed for hearing the very next day, 6 August 2026.

Rather than rule on the merits of the medical claim at that stage, the Court took a different route. Since neither it nor learned counsel was a medical expert, the Court directed that Banerjee appear before a medical board headed by the Head of Ophthalmology at IPGMER, Kolkata (SSKM Hospital) on 6 August 2026 at a fixed time. The board was to assess his present eye condition and furnish an opinion by 7 August 2026 on whether he required treatment abroad or whether treatment could be administered within India. The Court stated plainly: “what is important is treatment of the applicant, where it will be administered is immaterial.”

That course of action was foreclosed when, on instruction, Ms. John informed the Court that the applicant was not willing to appear before the medical board at SSKM Hospital. Justice Bhattacharyya recorded that had Banerjee appeared, the medical board's opinion would have placed the Court in a position to decide on 7 August 2026 whether foreign travel was necessary. In light of the refusal, the Court held that the application ought not to be kept pending any further.

Outcome

CAN 1 of 2026 was dismissed by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya on 5 August 2026. The condition imposed on 21 May 2026 — that Abhishek Banerjee shall not go abroad without leave of the Court — therefore continues. Parties were directed to act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of the Court.