The matter arose from a criminal complaint filed against Aroop Biswas alleging that eggs were thrown at him while he was present at the Alipore Court premises in connection with another case. Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, appearing for Biswas, submitted that the act amounted to a serious interference with the administration of justice and should be treated as criminal contempt. He told the Bench that lawyers were seen holding eggs and expressed personal shame at being part of the profession.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, who was hearing the plea, noted that the broader issue of security and incidents of public humiliation within court premises was already under consideration in a pending public interest litigation before the Chief Justice. The Court observed that a standard operating procedure was expected to be formulated in that PIL. Referring to the present incident, the Bench remarked that the act of parading a person publicly or pelting eggs constituted a menace that had to be stopped.

Datta further submitted that after Biswas had cooperated with the investigating agency, members of the media were present when the egg‑pelting occurred and the incident was widely broadcast. When the Court asked how such occurrences could be curtailed, Datta clarified that he was not blaming the media but was highlighting the circumstances in which the complaint had arisen. He argued that the delay of approximately twenty‑four hours in lodging the FIR raised doubts about its genuineness.

Regarding the offences invoked in the FIR, Datta contended that charges such as attempt to murder, criminal intimidation and outraging the modesty of a woman were wholly unsustainable on the facts presented. He maintained that the complaint was frivolous and that the petitioner had fully cooperated with the investigation.

The Court, however, pointed out that Biswas was already enjoying interim protection from coercive action. It directed him to implead the complainant as a party to the proceedings, to serve notice on that party and to return on the next date of hearing. The Bench stated, “You are enjoying a protection. Array the complainant, serve notice and come back. No use of hearing you further.”

Seeking continuation of the interim relief, Datta requested that the Court restrain any coercive steps against his client until the matter could be heard again. The Court accepted the request and directed, “Okay, in the meantime don't take any steps.” Additionally, the Bench ordered the preservation of the CCTV footage of the incident to ensure an accurate record of what transpired.

The oral observations underscore the Court’s concern about maintaining the dignity of judicial proceedings and preventing actions that could undermine public confidence in the justice system. By granting interim protection and directing procedural steps, the Bench sought to balance the protection of the accused with the need for a fair investigation, while signalling that practices such as public parading or egg‑pelting inside court premises are unacceptable and must cease.