Mahua Moitra moves Supreme Court against alleged late-night eviction from Nadia Circuit House

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra on Monday, August 24, 2026, made an urgent oral mentioning before the Chief Justice of India’s bench, alleging that the Nadia district administration in West Bengal evicted her from her constituency accommodation at the Circuit House late at night. Moitra, the Lok Sabha MP from Krishnanagar, claimed the eviction took place on August 14 despite a High Court order in her favour.

In a video message, Moitra said she was entitled to stay at the Circuit House as an MP representing the district. She alleged that a crowd had gathered outside the Circuit House chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’. The district administration had directed her to vacate the premises on the evening of August 14.

Her counsel submitted before the Supreme Court that the eviction of a sitting MP by local officials, including the Additional District Magistrate and the District Magistrate, at 11 p.m. was a direct attack on federalism and a violation of court orders. The counsel argued that the officials took the law into their own hands and sought an urgent hearing of Moitra’s writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The counsel said the eviction happened despite a High Court order in her favour and that an independent investigation and comprehensive directions were needed. The bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, said it would look into her plea for early listing.

The Nadia district administration functions under the West Bengal government, which is led by the Trinamool Congress — the party to which Moitra belongs. The incident has drawn political reactions, though neither the state government nor the district administration has issued an official statement responding to the allegations. Moitra, a former investment banker, has been a vocal critic of the central government and has also had differences with her own party leadership on several occasions.

Article 32 of the Constitution allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The oral mentioning is a preliminary step to request an urgent hearing. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a formal order on the matter.