Judiciary-Executive Tensions Surface in Supreme Court Amid Murshidabad Violence Petition
The ongoing debate over the judiciary’s role in matters traditionally reserved for the executive and legislature echoed through the Supreme Court on Monday, as the bench took up a petition related to recent violence in Murshidabad, West Bengal.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih was hearing an application seeking court intervention following the outbreak of violence in Murshidabad, when Justice Gavai referenced the growing criticism that the judiciary was allegedly overstepping into the executive and parliamentary domain.
“You want us to issue a mandamus directing the Union Government…? Already, we are facing allegations of encroaching upon the space of Parliament and the Executive,” Justice Gavai remarked, responding to Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, counsel for the petitioner, who was requesting permission to file fresh documents to present new facts in the ongoing case concerning the 2021 post-poll violence in West Bengal.
This exchange came against the backdrop of a recent Supreme Court ruling on April 8, in which the court declared Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi’s move to reserve 10 bills for the President’s consideration — after the state Assembly had reconsidered them — as unconstitutional and erroneous.
The court further established a timeline for Governors to follow when making decisions on legislative bills presented for assent.
These developments have triggered sharp reactions in political circles. BJP MP Dinesh Sharma commented that “no one can direct the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha,” emphasizing that the President, having already given assent, holds the final authority on legislative matters.
Another BJP MP, Nishikant Dubey, went a step further, attributing “all civil wars in the country” to the actions of the judiciary, singling out Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. However, the BJP later distanced itself from these statements.
Justice Gavai’s comments on Monday appeared to reflect on this growing criticism directed at the judiciary’s perceived role in matters of governance.
Meanwhile, the fresh application before the court urged the Union Government to act under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, citing the deteriorating law and order situation in Murshidabad, which the petitioner claimed threatens the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
Article 355 entrusts the Union with the responsibility to protect states against external threats and internal unrest, while Article 356 allows for President’s Rule if a state government fails to uphold constitutional governance.
The petitioner also asked the court for permission to file another application proposing the formation of a judicial probe committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge along with two retired High Court judges.
This committee would investigate incidents of violence, human rights violations, and crimes against women that have reportedly occurred in West Bengal from 2022 to April 2025, with particular focus on the Murshidabad violence linked to protests over the new Waqf law.
Additionally, the plea sought a directive to the Centre to deploy paramilitary forces in violence-hit areas to safeguard lives and property.
The application further urged the court to instruct the West Bengal government to uphold citizens’ fundamental rights, including the right to equality, life, liberty, dignity, and religious freedom as enshrined under Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution.
