The Supreme Court has directed the Krishnanagar district administration to examine Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s allegations that at least 18 projects funded through her Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) allocation are stalled, including school roof construction and repair works. The court said the administration must address the issue, failing which Moitra may approach the Calcutta High Court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymallya Bagchi heard Moitra’s petition on Friday. The Krishnanagar MP had moved the Supreme Court alleging that she was being prevented from carrying out development work in her Lok Sabha constituency despite writing to the district administration about the problems.
According to the report, Moitra’s lawyer, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, told the court that letters to the district administration had not resolved the issue. He said at least 18 development projects were awaiting progress and that several schools in the constituency required roof construction or repairs. The projects could not move forward despite the MP’s stated intention to implement them through her MPLAD allocation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the West Bengal government during the hearing. He told the court that the dispute was connected to a political issue. After hearing the state’s position, Justice Bagchi observed that the matter was not about an MP’s personal entitlement. The court’s concern, he said, was the interest of the beneficiaries of the development projects.
The court therefore directed the district administration to examine Moitra’s allegations. It also clarified that if the administration did not provide a resolution, the MP could approach the Calcutta High Court. The direction places the immediate responsibility for examining the stalled works with the district administration rather than treating the matter only as a dispute between a legislator and the state government.
MPLADS projects are intended to support the creation of local public assets recommended by Members of Parliament. In this case, the projects cited in court include school infrastructure, making the dispute directly relevant to the condition and usability of public facilities in Krishnanagar. The report does not provide the names of all 18 projects, their approved costs, executing agencies or the specific administrative reasons for the delays.
The hearing also covered Moitra’s access to the circuit house in Krishnanagar. She had alleged that she was asked to vacate her room at night after checking in. The state government issued a directive on September 1 requiring her to inform the administration three to four days before staying at the circuit house.
The Supreme Court modified that requirement by directing that one day’s prior notice would be sufficient. It further ordered the administration to arrange her stay in accordance with the rules. The Chief Justice observed that, as the area’s elected representative, Moitra would receive priority in using the circuit house. The court did not accept the state lawyer’s attempt to add a condition based on room availability.
The district administration’s examination of the alleged MPLAD delays and its compliance with the circuit house direction are now the next immediate steps arising from the Supreme Court hearing.
