16 criminal cases, 20 suitcases: why is Abhishek Banerjee leaving India for eye treatment?

The controversy begins with Banerjee’s medical history. The Supreme Court permitted the TMC national general secretary and Diamond Harbour MP to travel abroad for three weeks for treatment of a blunt-trauma injury to the left cheek, just below the left eye. Reports trace the injury to a 2016 road accident, after which he underwent prolonged treatment. However, the latest court reports do not establish that the proposed overseas procedure is specifically a 'retina surgery' the judicial record cited by the reports describes the medical condition as blunt trauma below the left eye.

The medical request became entangled with a separate legal battle. The West Bengal government opposed the foreign travel, citing 16 criminal cases against Banerjee and apprehending that he might not return. The State also sought a medical-board assessment before permitting overseas treatment. Banerjee’s side argued that he had a continuing history of treatment and was entitled to choose his medical facility. The Supreme Court ultimately held that an individual has a right to travel abroad and choose medical treatment.

The 16 cases themselves require careful qualification. They are FIRs/criminal proceedings under investigation, not 16 convictions. The Calcutta High Court had been dealing with Banerjee’s pleas for protection from coercive action across multiple FIRs. On July 30, protection was granted in three cases while the court sought details of all registered FIRs. By August 11, interim protection had been extended in the remaining cases, while the High Court declined to quash the proceedings.

The foreign-travel litigation followed a separate sequence. On August 5 the Calcutta High Court refused permission, noting that India was not lacking in medical expertise. Banerjee then approached the Supreme Court, which on August 10 overturned that refusal and allowed a three-week trip. The permission was conditional: he must travel on his diplomatic passport and provide the investigating agency with details including his itinerary, treatment and place of stay.

That brings the story back.

Dilip Ghosh has alleged that Banerjee is travelling abroad with more than 20 suitcases and questioned what they contain. But there is no court finding or independently established evidence in the cited reports confirming either the number of suitcases or anything suspicious about their contents.

The more consequential question is therefore not whether a suitcase count proves anything. It does not. The State itself raised the possibility that Banerjee might not return; the Supreme Court nevertheless permitted travel while imposing safeguards designed to ensure his cooperation and return.

So, is it leaving or fleeing?

As of now, the record establishes only the former. Whether the latter has any evidentiary basis will depend not on political rhetoric or suitcase counts, but on what happens when the court-approved three-week medical window ends.