The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up one of the petitioners who sought a probe by a special investigation team (SIT) into the communal violence that erupted in West Bengal's Murshidabad following protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the petition by advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha was filed in haste and it contained allegations against certain government functionaries though those persons were not added as parties to the plea."You are making allegations against A and B individual who are not before us. Allegation against anyone you need to implead them. Can we accept those allegations behind those persons," the Bench asked."I will make amendments," Jha said. "That is why we said you are in great hurry. Yes, justice to voiceless is good but do in proper manner. Not like this," the Bench remarked.It also took exception to the language employed by the petitioner in his pleadings."Are you supposed to mention all these expressions in pleadings? Is it the standard of decency in pleadings that you have adhered to," the Bench said"The terminology is also there in the press release by railways," Jha responded."These must be internal communications. We can only advise you and we are trying to understand," the Bench remarked.It cautioned Jha that posterity will judge the kind of pleadings made before the top court."Supreme court is a court of record. Posterity will see. You think it will be reported etc. But 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.Jha said that the case involves violation of fundamental rights and many persons have fled from their homes due to the violence. "When there is gross violation of fundamental rights, Article 32 is invoked. Article 226 is wider. Article 32 is specific. Many people of Bengal also contacted me," he stated. "Where are they," the Bench demanded. "I will include them (as parties). They got in touch yesterday. Many migrated to other States," Jha said. "What is the basis of your information on migration to other States," the Court asked. "Media reports," Jha replied.The Court eventually permitted Jha to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one with better material and averments..Another petition filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari was also withdrawn after Tiwari himself requested the same to include aspects relating to comments against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna."File a fresh plea. Whatever averments you want to raise you can. Maintain decorum and dignity of the institution. Averments should be decent, respectful. Article 32 plea must raise good questions of law with interesting legal material Rest of the things we forget when we sit here. Liberty granted to withdraw and file fresh plea with fresh averments taking into account consequent developments," the Court said while allowing Tiwari to withdraw his petition.Tiwari moved the Court seeking the constitution of a five-member judicial enquiry commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the communal violence that erupted in West Bengal following protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act..Murshidabad Violence: What Supreme Court said on plea to deploy paramilitary in West Bengal .According to the petition, violence erupted in Murshidabad and North 24 Parganas districts shortly after the enactment of the amended legislation. Over 150 individuals were arrested, and prohibitory orders as well as internet bans were imposed in several parts of Murshidabad. The petition also pointed to similar protests in Jammu & Kashmir, Manipur, Chennai and Bengaluru..He alleged that the violence was not spontaneous but a result of political instigation and hate speeches by persons occupying constitutional offices. The PIL argued that such speeches, while delivered under the guise of free expression, have crossed into the realm of incitement and communal provocation, jeopardizing public order and constitutional values. Earlier today, the apex court had declined to pass any urgent directions on a plea seeking deployment of paramilitary forces in West Bengal in light of the violence that broke out in Murshidabad over the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up one of the petitioners who sought a probe by a special investigation team (SIT) into the communal violence that erupted in West Bengal's Murshidabad following protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the petition by advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha was filed in haste and it contained allegations against certain government functionaries though those persons were not added as parties to the plea."You are making allegations against A and B individual who are not before us. Allegation against anyone you need to implead them. Can we accept those allegations behind those persons," the Bench asked."I will make amendments," Jha said. "That is why we said you are in great hurry. Yes, justice to voiceless is good but do in proper manner. Not like this," the Bench remarked.It also took exception to the language employed by the petitioner in his pleadings."Are you supposed to mention all these expressions in pleadings? Is it the standard of decency in pleadings that you have adhered to," the Bench said"The terminology is also there in the press release by railways," Jha responded."These must be internal communications. We can only advise you and we are trying to understand," the Bench remarked.It cautioned Jha that posterity will judge the kind of pleadings made before the top court."Supreme court is a court of record. Posterity will see. You think it will be reported etc. But 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.Jha said that the case involves violation of fundamental rights and many persons have fled from their homes due to the violence. "When there is gross violation of fundamental rights, Article 32 is invoked. Article 226 is wider. Article 32 is specific. Many people of Bengal also contacted me," he stated. "Where are they," the Bench demanded. "I will include them (as parties). They got in touch yesterday. Many migrated to other States," Jha said. "What is the basis of your information on migration to other States," the Court asked. "Media reports," Jha replied.The Court eventually permitted Jha to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one with better material and averments..Another petition filed by advocate Vishal Tiwari was also withdrawn after Tiwari himself requested the same to include aspects relating to comments against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna."File a fresh plea. Whatever averments you want to raise you can. Maintain decorum and dignity of the institution. Averments should be decent, respectful. Article 32 plea must raise good questions of law with interesting legal material Rest of the things we forget when we sit here. Liberty granted to withdraw and file fresh plea with fresh averments taking into account consequent developments," the Court said while allowing Tiwari to withdraw his petition.Tiwari moved the Court seeking the constitution of a five-member judicial enquiry commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the communal violence that erupted in West Bengal following protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act..Murshidabad Violence: What Supreme Court said on plea to deploy paramilitary in West Bengal .According to the petition, violence erupted in Murshidabad and North 24 Parganas districts shortly after the enactment of the amended legislation. Over 150 individuals were arrested, and prohibitory orders as well as internet bans were imposed in several parts of Murshidabad. The petition also pointed to similar protests in Jammu & Kashmir, Manipur, Chennai and Bengaluru..He alleged that the violence was not spontaneous but a result of political instigation and hate speeches by persons occupying constitutional offices. The PIL argued that such speeches, while delivered under the guise of free expression, have crossed into the realm of incitement and communal provocation, jeopardizing public order and constitutional values. Earlier today, the apex court had declined to pass any urgent directions on a plea seeking deployment of paramilitary forces in West Bengal in light of the violence that broke out in Murshidabad over the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
