Supreme Court questions plea to invoke Article 355 for West Bengal

The Supreme Court on Monday examined a plea that sought to direct the Union government to invoke emergency constitutional powers to protect West Bengal from violence, with the Bench questioning whether such an order would amount to judicial interference in the domains of the Executive and the Legislature.

Justice B.R. Gavai, who has been recommended to be appointed as the next Chief Justice of India, made the observation while hearing advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who sought an urgent hearing on April 22 of his application invoking Article 355 of the Constitution. The provision casts a duty on 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 Constitution.

"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.

The judge appeared to refer to criticism of the judiciary following an April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, in which the court laid down timelines for the President and Governors to clear Bills. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar had criticised the judiciary for acting like a "super-Parliament".

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

In a separate matter, Justice Gavai's Bench asked a lawyer who made an oral mentioning to obtain Attorney General R. Venkataramani's permission before initiating contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey over his comments against the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna in the context of the April 8 judgment. Under the law, the Attorney General's consent is required to file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, a Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant allowed petitioner-advocate Shashant Shekhar Jha to withdraw his petition seeking a Special Investigation Team and a court-monitored probe into the violence in West Bengal over the new waqf law amendments. The Bench questioned the sources behind the allegations and whether the pleadings had been properly verified before filing.

"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 told the petitioner. The court permitted him to withdraw the petition and file an amended one.

The hearing followed another petition by advocate Vishal Tiwari on the same issue, which was also withdrawn. Both petitioners had referred to violence in the Bhangar area of West Bengal's South 24 Parganas district on April 14. One plea sought a direction to the State government to report to 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 protests against the waqf law amendments.