NEW DELHI: The Centre through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Wednesday opposed TMC MP Mahua Moitra’s plea under Article 32 before the Supreme Court in connection with her plea in which she was asked to vacate her constituency accommodation at circuit house in West Bengal’s Krishnanagar late in the night against a protective high Court order.

Mehta told the Supreme Court that MP’s individual issues cannot be agitated under Article 32.

He made submissions while court was hearing Moitra’s plea alleging serious breach of protocol and contemptuous conduct after she was asked to vacate her constituency accommodation at circuit house in West Bengal’s Krishnanagar late in night against High Court orders.

“Individual issues of members of Parliament are directly being agitated before the Supreme Court. These are individual issues. Somebody else may come and say my schemes are not implemented. The question I am putting is, would all MPs be entitled to come to the Supreme Court,” Mehta stated.

The petitioner, Moitra alleged local officials in Nadia district evicted her from constituency accommodation in middle of night despite protective High Court order.

Last month, the SC was informed that officials evicted Moitra from her constituency accommodation in middle of night despite protective order. Her plea claims serious breach of protocol and contempt.

Mehta argued Article 32 cannot be invoked for such disputes. He said if allowed, all MPs would be entitled to come to Supreme Court for individual grievances.

Moitra’s counsel argued action was mala fide and contempt of court.

Hearing these submissions, the CJI-led bench agreed to hear Moitra’s case on Thursday, as it will examine maintainability of her plea.

The case assumes significance as it questions whether MPs can directly approach the apex court under Article 32 for individual accommodation issues and whether action of officials in evicting sitting MP late at night despite HC order amounts to contemptuous conduct and breach of protocol in West Bengal.