West Bengal Leader of Opposition and BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari on 16 January 2026 filed a ₹100 crore defamation suit against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, escalating a bitter political confrontation that has gripped the state ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.

Adhikari lodged the suit in the civil court at Alipore, accusing Banerjee of making “imaginary and vile” allegations linking him to an alleged coal scam claims he categorically rejects as baseless and defamatory. The legal action comes after Banerjee failed to respond within 72 hours to a defamation notice that Adhikari had served earlier this month demanding proof of her allegations; the BJP leader says her silence now amounts to an admission of a lack of substantive evidence.

So far, Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) have not issued a direct counter-statement challenging the specifics of the suit, though party leaders continue to criticise Adhikari’s conduct and political motives.

Legal Battle: Claims, Notices, and Court Action

The defamation notice, sent through advocate Suryaneel Das, was issued after Banerjee publicly spoke about the alleged coal scam on 8 and 9 January in multiple rallies and interviews, suggesting that Adhikari, along with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, was somehow involved in the case.

However, she did not present any supporting evidence at the time, prompting Adhikari to demand documentary proof via the legal notice. When Banerjee did not respond within the stipulated 72-hour deadline as required under defamation law Adhikari moved court.

In his social media posts, Adhikari criticised Banerjee’s silence, accusing her of “deceptive silence” and of obfuscating issues rather than addressing them directly. He made it clear that he had honoured his own commitment to taking legal action, and reiterated that if the court awards damages, he plans to donate the entire amount to charity.

The case is now before a senior division civil judge at Alipore, where Adhikari has sought ₹100 crore in damages, arguing that Banerjee’s statements have caused “irreparable harm” to his reputation. The BJP leader has also publicly warned Banerjee to consult her legal team or risk being personally liable for the hefty compensation.

Political Rivalry Fuels the Conflict

The defamation suit underscores the intensifying political rivalry between Adhikari and Banerjee that has defined West Bengal politics in recent years. Once a trusted member of Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress, Adhikari defected to the BJP ahead of the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections, a move that shocked political observers and heralded a period of sharp personal and political clashes between the two.

Since then, Adhikari has emerged as one of Banerjee’s most persistent critics, frequently clashing with the state government on issues ranging from law and order to electoral processes.

This legal confrontation occurs amid multiple flashpoints between political opponents. For example, the Calcutta High Court recently declined to quash an FIR against Adhikari over alleged derogatory remarks he made about a former IPS officer, signalling that the opposition leader is currently navigating a complex legal landscape of his own.

At the same time, in the broader political arena, Banerjee’s tussle with central investigative agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and disputes over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have added layers of tension to the state’s political climate.

Banerjee has taken her grievances against alleged misuse of federal probe agencies to the Chief Justice of India, urging safeguards to protect citizens’ reputations and democratic processes a move widely seen as part of TMC’s strategic pushback against critics.

Public Reactions and Party Responses

The BJP has largely backed Adhikari’s defamation suit as a principled stand against what it describes as unverified political mud-slinging by Banerjee, accusing the TMC leadership of attempting to divert public attention from governance and alleged electoral irregularities.

Adhikari and other party leaders have repeatedly highlighted Banerjee’s public criticism of the SIR process, which was initiated by the Election Commission of India to clean up and update voter lists ahead of elections. Adhikari argued that Banerjee’s objections to SIR described in her communication to the Chief Election Commissioner as alleged mishandling and intimidation were “baseless and exaggerated,” framing them as politically motivated attempts to derail the electoral exercise.

The TMC, for its part, has dismissed Adhikari’s legal threats as politically motivated and symptomatic of a “frustrated” leader looking for attention. Ahead of the suit, party spokesman and national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee criticised the BJP leadership for focusing on legal battles rather than governance and accused Adhikari of failing to deliver development in his constituency since joining the BJP.

Democratic Norms and Broader Implications

From a wider perspective, this legal confrontation highlights a growing trend where political disputes increasingly play out in courtrooms rather than purely in legislative assemblies or public debate. While defamation suits are a legitimate avenue for public figures to seek redress, their frequent use in high-stakes political environments raises questions about the balance between free speech, accountability, and democratic engagement.

At a time when West Bengal is gearing up for consequential elections, the focus on personality-driven legal battles could overshadow substantive issues like development, governance, public service delivery, and socio-economic welfare.

It also underlines the importance of transparent evidence and responsible rhetoric in public discourse especially when allegations involve serious crimes like corruption or misuse of constitutional mechanisms. Responsible leadership and mutual respect for democratic norms are essential to ensure that political competition does not erode institutional trust or social harmony.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

The Suvendu Adhikari–Mamata Banerjee defamation suit saga serves as a reminder that political accountability must be rooted in fact, not rhetoric. While leaders have every right to defend their reputation, allegations of wrongdoing must be backed by clear evidence and addressed through transparent processes.

As politics becomes increasingly adversarial, we must ask: Can India’s political class foster robust criticism without descending into vindictive legal warfare that risks eroding public trust in democratic institutions? In an era of deep political polarisation, prioritising dialogue, respect, and truth-based discourse is not just desirable it’s vital for the health of our democracy.