New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into violent protests over the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in Murshidabad, West Bengal.
The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, declined to entertain the petition, suggesting the petitioner approach the Calcutta High Court instead.
"We see no reason to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, as the petitioner has an alternative, efficacious remedy to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution", the top court bench stated in its order.
The plea was filed by one Satish Kumar Agarwal, who flagged the failure of state authorities to discharge their duties/responsibilities to protect the life and property of Murshidabad residents.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner, advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, began his submissions by informing the court of the failure of state authorities to investigate the violence that led to the death of Hindu persons.
"Because the Police Administration of the State of West Bengal has miserably failed in discharging its duty/ responsibility in protecting the life and property of Hindus. The ghastly incident of murder, arson and loot which took place from April 8, 2025, to April 12, 2025 in Murshidabad, West Bengal has caused an exodus.
The Court, however, strongly suggested that the counsel approach the Calcutta High Court, stating that the matter strictly pertains to West Bengal and there is no reason for the top court to entertain such a plea.
The Court noted that the petitioner has an alternative, efficacious remedy to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
"Tell us who is preventing you from going to the High Court. It is the constitutional court having powers even better than the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The case pertains to only one state. What message does it give to the High Court," the Court stated.
The petitioner's counsel highlighted a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) report alleging human rights violations, which the Court found insufficient to warrant its intervention.
"The NHRC report is very disturbing", the counsel said.
The bench emphasised that the matter pertains to a single state, making it more suitable for the High Court to handle.
"If the Petitioner perceives any threat to his life and liberty, he may file the petition online. The hearing can also take place through Video Conferencing (VC). We direct the High Court (officials) to extend some specialities (to the petitioner).
The bench remarked that such petitions are often filed to create a scene, suggesting that the petitioner's intent might be more publicity-driven than seeking genuine justice.
"These are only to create a scene. This is all hype being created, we know all this", Justice Surya Kant stated.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
