NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea filed by a lawyer seeking an independent probe into the violence in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district during protests against the Waqf Act, taking strong exception to the language used in the petition.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Koiswar Singh allowed petitioner-in-person advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha to withdraw his public interest litigation (PIL), granting him liberty to file a fresh plea with “better and appropriate particulars.”The top court pulled up Jha for the averments made in the petition, stating they were without proper verification and lacked necessary parties.”You seem to be in some kind of hurry,” the bench said.Justice Kant added, “This court is a court of record. The pleadings filed in the court and orders passed by this court will be there for posterity. In future, when someone will see the pleadings of this case, do you think they will like it? Hence, we are again saying that withdraw this petition and file a fresh one. There is a need to maintain decency in the pleadings and avoid offensive statements.”The bench continued: “We should always maintain the integrity and decorum of the institution… Think about what averments are required to be made, and required to be struck off. Don’t seek publicity. Think with a cool mind.”Jha told the court that people from violence-hit Murshidabad district had been forced to take shelter in neighbouring states.“Where are those aggrieved persons? Have you made mention of those persons? Have you verified their claims? We respect every citizen who wants to come to us. They are welcome here. But with a sense of responsibility. One has to be careful with the averments made,” the judge said.On the “unsubstantiated averments” made against individuals who were not impleaded as parties, the bench observed, “You are making allegations against individuals who are not before us. Can we accept these allegations and examine them behind their back? You have not impleaded them.”Jha eventually agreed to amend and refile the petition. Justice Kant said, “That is why we at the outset said, you were in a hurry… Yes, we want justice to be done to the voiceless people, but you have to do it in a proper manner. Not like this.”The bench also allowed advocate Vishal Tiwari to withdraw his separate plea after he said he wished to place on record certain provocative statements made after the filing of his petition, including remarks by a Member of Parliament criticising the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India.Jha’s petition had sought a court-monitored probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and requested directions to the West Bengal government and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to explain the alleged law and order failure. He also sought compensation and rehabilitation for victims of the violence.Jha’s plea stated: “Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other ensuring protection of life and liberty of those currently being affected and prevent further escalation.”He alleged that rioters had unleashed violence across West Bengal, resulting in assaults, killings, destruction of property, and vandalism of Hindu religious structures. He claimed people were being forced to migrate due to their political affiliations and religious identities, in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution.The petition named the state of West Bengal, represented by its Cabinet Secretary, as the first respondent, and the Union of India, through the Cabinet Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, as the second.Jha submitted that the situation was so severe it was not feasible to approach government authorities for relief, and that urgent intervention by the Supreme Court was necessary.He alleged that on 10 April, a violent mob vandalised and later torched police vehicles in the presence of law enforcement. He further claimed that state minister Siddiqullah Chowdhury threatened to bring the state to a standstill in protest against the Waqf Bill and that he could mobilise 10,000 people across 50 locations.Jha also alleged that at a rally by Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind at Ramlila Maidan, Chowdhury demanded the immediate withdrawal of the legislation and incited the public.Communal violence broke out in parts of Murshidabad district—mainly Suti, Samserganj, Dhulian, and Jangipur—on 11 and 12 April during protests against the newly enacted law. Several people were killed and hundreds displaced. The Calcutta High Court has since ordered the deployment of central forces in the region.
Source link
