SC Cautious on Bengal Intervention, Cites Judicial Overreach Concerns
SC Cautious on Bengal Intervention, Cites Judicial Overreach Concerns
The Supreme Court has shown reluctance to intervene in West Bengal violence, questioning if it would intrude on executive and legislative domains. Judges highlight past criticism over judicial overreach.
The Supreme Court on Monday addressed pleas seeking its intervention in the violence plaguing West Bengal, particularly asking whether such a move would amount to an unwarranted judicial intrusion into the powers of the Executive and Legislature. Justice B.R.
Gavai, a contender for the next Chief Justice of India, pointed to recent criticism leveled against the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its boundaries into governmental and parliamentary affairs, following a significant April 8 judgment concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor.
Justice Gavai's remarks came in response to advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain's plea, which urged the Union government to invoke emergency powers under Article 355 to 'protect' the State of West Bengal. Article 355 mandates the Union's duty to shield states from external aggression and internal disturbances.
The judge questioned, "You want us to issue a writ of mandamus to the Union government to deploy paramilitary forces… Will it not be interfering with the Legislative and Executive domains?
As it is, we are being accused of interfering with Parliamentary and Executive functions."
In a separate but related development, Justice Gavai's Bench also instructed a lawyer seeking to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey to first obtain permission from Attorney General R. Venkataramani. This move follows Dubey's comments regarding the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, made in the aftermath of the April 8 verdict.
Meanwhile, another Supreme Court Bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, saw two petitioners withdraw their pleas concerning the West Bengal violence. Advocate Shashant Shekhar Jha withdrew his petition that sought a Special Investigation Team and a court-monitored probe into the violence related to the new waqf law amendments.
Justice Kant questioned the petitioner's sourcing and verification of allegations, stating, "The people you have mentioned in the petition have not even been parties. Can we accept these allegations? How will they defend themselves?
How can we examine these allegations behind their backs?" The court allowed Mr. Jha to amend and refile his petition.
Advocate Vishal Tiwari also withdrew his similar petition.
Both withdrawn petitions referenced communal violence, including deaths and displacement, in areas like Bhangar in West Bengal's South 24 Parganas district and Murshidabad, which occurred around April 11-14. These incidents were linked to protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Calcutta High Court had recently ordered the deployment of Central forces in Murshidabad district to address the unrest.
#SupremeCourt #WestBengalViolence #JudicialOverreach #Article355
