As it is, we are being accused of interfering with Parliamentary and Executive functions: SC Bench to petitioner

The Supreme Court on Monday answered a plea to direct the Union government to invoke emergency powers and “protect” the State of West Bengal from violence with a question on whether such a measure would amount to a judicial incursion into the domains of the Executive and Legislature.

Justice B.R. Gavai, who has been recommended to be appointed as the next Chief Justice of India, obliquely referred to criticism about the judiciary intruding on government and parliamentary terrains following an April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The court, in its verdict, had issued timelines to the President and Governors for clearing Bills. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankar had criticised the judiciary for acting like a “super-Parliament”.

“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,” Justice Gavai remarked to advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain.

The judge’s remark from the Bench was in response to a plea by Mr. Jain to hear his application to invoke Article 355 of the Constitution. Article 355 mandates it the “duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”. He pleaded for an urgent hearing of his plea on April 22.

Mr. Jain referred to the communal violence and deaths in West Bengal during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

Separately, Justice Gavai’s Bench asked a lawyer, who made an oral mentioning, to get Attorney General (A-G) R. Venkataramani’s permission to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey for his comments against the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna in the backdrop of the April 8 judgment. Under the law, the Attorney General has to give his consent to file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, another Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Surya Kant saw a petitioner-advocate, Shashant Shekhar Jha, withdraw his petition seeking the setting up of a Special Investigation Team and a court-monitored probe into the violence in West Bengal over the new waqf law amendments.

The Bench quizzed the petitioner about the sources based on which the allegations had been made in the writ petition. The court questioned whether the pleadings and averments had been properly verified by Mr. Jha before filing his writ petition.

“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? File a proper petition. Help us in doing justice to those who are voiceless,” Justice Kant addressed Mr. Jha.

The court allowed the lawyer to withdraw his petition to file an amended one.

The hearing in Mr. Jha’s case was preceded by another filed by advocate-petitioner Vishal Tiwari, on the same issue. Mr. Tiwari also chose to withdraw his petition.

Both petitioners had referred to the violence in the Bhangar area of West Bengal’s South 24 Parganas district on April 14. One of the pleas sought a direction to the State government to file a report in the apex court on steps taken to contain the violence and protect public property and lives. The Calcutta High Court had recently ordered the deployment of Central forces in Murshidabad district. At least three people were killed and hundreds rendered homeless in communal violence in parts of Murshidabad, mainly Suti, Samserganj, Dhulian and Jangipur, on April 11 and 12 during the protests against the waqf law amendments.