Is Aroop Biswas Lionel Messi’s childhood friend, Calcutta high court asks ex-minister’s lawyer

KOLKATA: Calling the Messi fiasco at the Salt Lake stadium a “blot” on the city’s image, the Calcutta high court on Wednesday slammed former state sports minister Aroop Biswas’s “close proximity” to football great Lionel Messi.

Though Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya ordered no coercive action against Biswas till Aug 17 in a case lodged by Satadru Dutta, the event organiser of the Messi tour, he did flag the six-month delay in the FIR, which was registered on May 30 for an event, which took place on Dec 13, 2025.

After the HC order, Dutta said he would move the Supreme Court to challenge it. He wrote on Facebook, “Going to the Supreme Court. I have faith in judiciary.”

Referring to the media photographs of Messi, held by the waist by Biswas, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya asked Kishore Datta, counsel of the former sports and youth minister: “Look at the photograph, is this person not your client? Does it not breach the security of the soccer legend? How can he do this? Is he Messi’s childhood friend? Spreading his hands around Messi’s waist. How did he do this? We, the residents of Kolkata, felt ashamed because of this Messi incident fiasco.”

Justice Bhattacharyya directed Bidhannagar commissioner of police (CP) to conduct an independent investigation of the incident, where intruders managed their way into the ground, and Messi had to leave before schedule due to security breach. Justice Bhattacharyya said the report should be filed within four weeks. The case will be next heard on Aug 4.

“Messi is a soccer legend, who was slated to appear at Vivekananda Yuba Bharati Krirangan on Dec 13, 2025, in front of a large number of spectators. But Messi had to leave the field much prior to the scheduled time due to a security breach… Thousands of Messi fans bought tickets to witness the presence of their hero on the field, but Messi’s early exit from the field shattered their dreams. It was a complete fiasco in organising such an event. However, in three other metro cities—Hyderabad, Mumbai and Delhi—similar programmes with Messi were organised seamlessly. Failure to organise the programme here left a blot on the image of Kolkata. While granting interim protection to the petitioner, this court cannot shut its eyes to such Messi event fiasco,” Justice Bhattacharyya held.

The “interim protection” for Biswas comes with riders: he will have to submit his passport to the jurisdictional court within seven days, he cannot leave the city without taking the court’s permission and more importantly, he will have to appear for the summons, to be served at least 48 hours earlier, and cooperate with the investigating agency for a “meaningful” probe. The director general and inspector general of police (DG&IGP) of Bengal was also directed to submit other criminal proceedings, which may may be pending against Biswas.

The hearing was held after Biswas approached Justice Bhattacharyya’s bench, seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him at Bidhannagar. He did not appear for the summons, served on him twice. On one occasion, he replied, “However prevailing weather conditions and excessive heat, I have developed severe stomach ailment accompanied with dehydration, my blood sugar level has increased. As a result, I am physically incapacitated from attending the police station and participating in the investigation proceedings.” But no supporting document was submitted.

The state, represented by advocate-general Surojit Nath Mitra opposed the prayer, saying as Biswas missed two summons and during the serving of the second summons, they found his home locked, he should not be given any protection under section 35(3) of the BNSS.

Complainant Dutta’s allegations against Biswas were of taking complimentary passes, close proximity tickets and accreditation cards for the event. It was alleged Biswas had made wrongful monetary gains. Police registered a case under BNS sections, which were cognisable and non-bailable, and all with punishments under seven years, if convicted.

But Justice Bhattacharyya prima facie held that custodial investigation was not needed, given the allegation nature. “What are the reasons that he needs to be arrested for? You have taken point on being influential. Another point troubling the mind of the court is that the incident took place on Dec 13, 2025, when was the complaint lodged? ...and you are afraid that the petitioner will intimidate? A complaint was lodged after six months.”