The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the recent communal violence that erupted in West Bengal's Murshidabad during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act..The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh took a serious view of the petitioner directly approaching the top court. The Bench pointed out that he had an equally effective alternative remedy before the Calcutta High Court. "Why don't you go to High Court - a Constitutional Court having powers better than the Supreme Court under Article 32? ... Filing direct writ petitions to the Supreme Court amounts to demeaning the High Court. If it was matter which involved 7-8 States, then we can understand but (this is not one such case)," the Court remarked..The Court reiterated its disapproval of the trend where litigants directly approach the apex court with writ petitions, while bypassing other alternative remedies. "This practice of filing direct writ petitions before the Supreme Court, we will deal with very seriously," Justice Kant said. .While rejecting the plea, the top court granted the petitioner liberty to move the High Court for relief..Earlier also, the top court had pulled up a petitioner for approaching it in haste with a plea seeking a probe into the Murshidabad violence. At the time, the Court further cautioned advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha against the language employed in his pleadings."Supreme Court is a court of record. Posterity will see ... You have to be careful when filing pleadings or passing an order. Are these averments required to be there? We respect every member of the bar. But with a sense of responsibility," the Bench stated then. Jha had then withdrawn the plea.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking a special investigation team (SIT) probe into the recent communal violence that erupted in West Bengal's Murshidabad during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act..The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh took a serious view of the petitioner directly approaching the top court. The Bench pointed out that he had an equally effective alternative remedy before the Calcutta High Court. "Why don't you go to High Court - a Constitutional Court having powers better than the Supreme Court under Article 32? ... Filing direct writ petitions to the Supreme Court amounts to demeaning the High Court. If it was matter which involved 7-8 States, then we can understand but (this is not one such case)," the Court remarked..The Court reiterated its disapproval of the trend where litigants directly approach the apex court with writ petitions, while bypassing other alternative remedies. "This practice of filing direct writ petitions before the Supreme Court, we will deal with very seriously," Justice Kant said. .While rejecting the plea, the top court granted the petitioner liberty to move the High Court for relief..Earlier also, the top court had pulled up a petitioner for approaching it in haste with a plea seeking a probe into the Murshidabad violence. At the time, the Court further cautioned advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha against the language employed in his pleadings."Supreme Court is a court of record. Posterity will see ... You have to be careful when filing pleadings or passing an order. Are these averments required to be there? We respect every member of the bar. But with a sense of responsibility," the Bench stated then. Jha had then withdrawn the plea.
