The Calcutta High Court has provided respite to Amit Malviya, the chief of the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) IT Cell, by granting him relief in a case filed against him for inciting communal animosity.

Justice Jay Sengupta, a single-judge of the Calcutta High Court, pointed out that the notice issued by the Police under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to Amit Malviya, directing him to appear for interrogation, lacked a specific date.

Consequently, the Court directed that the police should conduct the interrogation of Amit Malviya via video conference (VC) only after providing him with a prior notice of 48 days.

"It appears that one of the notices issued under Section 41A of the Code does not contain any date. The notices allegedly reached the petitioner after the dates were fixed for appearance. It is also alleged that the police are giving short dates to appear. In view of these and in the interest of justice, for the present, the investigating agency shall interrogate the petitioner over video conference after giving a 48 hours’ prior notice by e-mail," the single-judge ordered.

The judge ordered that the petitioner must provide their email address to the state advocate during the proceedings. The matter was adjourned until April 25. Additionally, the Court ordered that the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Malviya should be made available on the official website of the State police.

The Court observed that the police had breached the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India, which requires the FIR to be uploaded on the official website of the police.a

Malviya approached the Court arguing that due to his commitments to the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, he is unable to attend the interrogation by the State Police. As a result, he has designated a friend to act as an executor for handling the current petition. He further claimed that he had received notices with inadequate timeframes and without specific dates.

The State contested the maintainability of the petition, asserting that it lacked a power of attorney or authorization. Additionally, it argued that the investigating agency might require physical interrogation of Malviya under Section 41A of the CrPC. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that the petition was maintainable.