We are currently accused of interfering with parliamentary and executive functions: SC Bench petitioners
The Supreme Court on Monday responded to a plea to direct the Union government to exercise emergency powers to “protect” the state of West Bengal from violence, questioning whether such a move would amount to judicial intrusion into the executive and legislative spheres.
Justice BR Gavai, who has been tipped to be appointed as the next Chief Justice of India, indirectly referred to criticism of the judiciary encroaching on government and parliamentary domains after his April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case. In its verdict, the court gave the president and governors deadlines to account for the laws. Deputy Speaker Jagdeep Dhankar criticized the judiciary for behaving like a “super-parliament”.
“You want us to issue a writ of mandamus to the Union government to deploy paramilitary forces… Will it not interfere with the legislative and executive spheres? As it is, we are accused of interfering with parliamentary and executive functions,” Justice Gavai observed to advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain.
The judge’s remark from the bench was in response to Mr. Jain’s request to hear his plea invoking Article 355 of the Constitution. Article 355 imposes on it “the duty of the Union to protect every State from external aggression and internal disturbance, and to ensure that the government of every State shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”. He asked for an urgent hearing on his application on April 22.
Mr. Jain referred to the communal violence and deaths in West Bengal during the protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
“Get AG Permit”
Separately, Justice Gavai’s Bench asked the lawyer who made the oral reference to seek Attorney General (AG) 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 Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna in the April judgment. By law, the Attorney General must give consent to the filing of a contempt petition with the Supreme Court.
Petitions withdrawn
Meanwhile, another bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Surya Kant saw the petitioner’s advocate, Shashant Shekhar Jha, withdraw his petition seeking the setting up of a special investigation team and a court-monitored inquiry into the violence in West Bengal over the new amendments to the waqf law.
The Bench questioned the petitioner about the sources on the basis of which the allegations were made in the plaint. The court questioned whether the pleadings and statements were properly verified by Mr. Jha before his motion was filed.
“The people you mentioned in the petition were not even parties. Can we accept these allegations? How will they defend themselves? How can we investigate these allegations behind their backs? File a proper petition. Help us bring justice to the voiceless,” Justice Kant addressed Mr. Jha.
The court allowed the attorney to withdraw his motion to file an amended motion.
The hearing in Mr. Jha’s case preceded another filed by advocate-petitioner Vishal Tiwari in the same matter. Mr. Tiwari also decided to withdraw his petition.
Both the petitioners cited the April 14 violence in the Bhangar area of South 24 Parganas district of West Bengal. One of the pleas sought a direction to the state government to report to the apex court on steps taken to curb violence and protect public property and lives. The Calcutta High Court recently ordered the deployment of central forces in Murshidabad district. At least three people were killed and hundreds made homeless in communal violence in parts of Murshidabad, mainly Suti, Samserganj, Dhulian and Jangipur, on April 11 and 12 during protests against amendments to the waqf law.
Published – 24 Sep 2026 12:44 IST