नवीनतम
SC declines urgent plea for Prez rule in WB
NEW DELHI [Maha Media]: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass any immediate direction on a plea seeking imposition of President’s rule and urgent deployment of paramilitary forces in West Bengal in view of communal and political violence allegedly triggered by the Waqf (Amendment) Act in Murshidabad.
The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench comprising justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, appearing for the petitioner, sought the court’s nod to file additional documents highlighting continued violence in the state and urged immediate implementation of Article 355 of the Constitution.
“There is a need for immediate deployment of paramilitary forces. The matter is listed for tomorrow. I have filed an additional application seeking the invocation of Article 355,” Jain submitted.
Reacting sharply, Justice Gavai asked, “You want us to issue a writ of mandamus to the President to impose President’s rule? As it is, we are accused of intruding into legislative and executive domains.”
The judge was referring to criticism faced by the top court in recent cases, including one where it directed the Governor and President to act within set timelines on state bills, sparking a larger debate on judicial overreach.
The fresh intervention applications were filed in a pending writ petition by petitioner Shashank Shekhar Jha, which seeks a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the violence in West Bengal.
Another application by West Bengal resident Devdutta Majid seeks the formation of a three-member committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the clashes.
The bench also heard a separate oral mention for permission to initiate contempt proceedings against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma over their remarks targeting the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India.
However, the Court directed the petitioner to first obtain the consent of the Attorney General for India before proceeding.
The matter is scheduled for April 22.
