Supreme Court sends Trinamool billboard dispute to Calcutta High Court

Supreme Court declines immediate relief

The Supreme Court declined to interfere directly in the Trinamool Congress’ challenge to the removal of a party signboard from Abhishek Banerjee’s office at 9 Camac Street in Kolkata. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the Calcutta High Court to consider the party’s contentions and all issues in the pending case expeditiously.

The top court emphasized that the Calcutta High Court’s August 28, 2026, order had not decided the pending issues on their merits. Its observations were described as tentative, and the parties were given liberty to raise their respective arguments before the High Court.

Removal remains in place

The dispute concerns a signboard bearing the All India Trinamool Congress name and party logo that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation removed from the roof of Banerjee’s Camac Street office on August 27. The Trinamool Congress sought restoration of the signboard, but the Supreme Court did not order it to be put back or direct an interim halt to municipal action.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued for the party that no notice was issued before the signboard was removed and that the Calcutta High Court erred in saying the claim no longer survived because the board had already been taken down. The bench said the removal did not itself resolve the party’s broader grievance, but it did not grant relief at the Supreme Court level.

High Court retains the next decision

The Trinamool Congress had challenged the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to grant interim relief, including its request to restore the billboard and restrain municipal authorities from taking action concerning the premises. The High Court had declined that request, finding it premature and saying that restoration at the interim stage would effectively amount to final relief.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the dispute returns to the Calcutta High Court for an expedited hearing on the parties’ remaining contentions. No outcome on the legality of the removal or any further remedy has been reported in the supplied evidence.