SC dismisses PIL seeking SIT probe on violent protests in Murshidabad over Waqf Act
New Delhi [India], May 13 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on violent protests that took place in the Murshidabad district of West Bengal, after the enactment of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant found no reason to entertain the plea and suggested the petitioner to approach the High Court.
'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 in discharging 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 informing the court of the failure of state authorities to investigate the violence that led to the death of people from the Hindu community.
'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 counsel said.
The Court, however strongly suggested the counsel to 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.
'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 counsel further informed the Court about a report issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in this regard, alleging that various human rights violations had taken place.
'The NHRC report is very disturbing', the counsel said.
After considering the submissions, the Court dismissed the plea, issuing directions for the petitioner to approach the High Court.
'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 said.
The bench also remarked that such petitions are filed before the top court, only to create a scene.
'These are only to create a scene. This is all hype being created, we know all this', Justice Surya Kant stated. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Census, followed by delimitation or freeze? The road ahead, likely legal challenges
The current freeze on delimitation — which for the past 50 years has based the allocation of seats to states in the Lok Sabha on the census figures of 1971 — will expire in 2026, unless Parliament passes another Constitutional Amendment Bill by then to extend it. The reason: the Constitution under Article 82 mandates delimitation after each census to readjust the seats as per changes in population. It says, 'Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine.' Article 81 of the Constitution provides for the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle. Article 81 (2) (a) says, 'There shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all States.' Article 81 (2) (b) says, 'Each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State.' With the collection of data for the next census ending by March 1, 2027, the release of census data could coincide with the expiry of the freeze on delimitation. This freeze was put in place first for 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 1976, and again by 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 2002. The reason for the freeze was the concern of the southern states that because their population had stabilised by then, and the population of some northern states had begun to grow at a brisk pace, their representation in the Lok Sabha would go down. To freeze or not to freeze With the Constitution ensuring equality of representation to citizens and not states of the Union, and mandating delimitation every 10 years to adjust the allocation of the seats to population, the only way in which the southern states will not lose representation would have to be another Constitutional amendment. However, with government sources saying that the idea is to have delimitation and then women's reservation in the Lok Sabha elections of 2029, the census is likely to be followed by delimitation. The website of the Election Commission of India says, 'Under Article 82 of the Constitution, the Parliament by law enacts a Delimitation Act after every census. After the commencement of the Act, the Central Government constitutes a Delimitation Commission. This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. Notwithstanding the above, the Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026. Thus, the present Constituencies carved out on the basis of the 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026.' In other words, the release of census data will be followed by the passage of the Delimitation Bill in Parliament, unless Parliament suspends the constitutionally mandated process by amending the Constitution to freeze delimitation by, say, another 25 years. Potential legal issues Once the Delimitation Commission is constituted by the Centre, it will use the latest census data to redraw Lok Sabha constituencies. However, it will be bound by Article 81 of the Constitution to redraw these on the basis of the latest population data, unless Article 81 is itself amended. Article 81 may anyway require amendments. For instance, since it limits the strength of the Lok Sabha to 550 under clauses (a) and (b), the strength will have to revised through a constitutional amendment so as to ensure that one MP does not represent too large a population, and to pave way for the reservation of women without cutting down the seats available to men. Article 81 as of now makes one exception to the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle, by giving small states and Union Territories at least one seat even if their population is very low. Since the Constitution is clear about the centrality of this principle in all other cases, the only way the south does not lose relative strength in the Lok Sabha will be by amending Article 81 (2) (a). However, any move to amend Article 81 (2) (a) would be liable to challenge in the Supreme Court as violative of the right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15. The fear in south India is that if delimitation is based purely on population, northern states will get much more seats and thus a very large voice in Parliament. But if the law is amended and they get more seats than they would through the population criterion, then voters in the north and the south are not being treated equally. Even if the principle of reasonable classification — likes be treated alike — is evoked, it will be based on the argument that better social and economic indicators require special protection for southern states. This logic is exactly opposite to the one that permits reservation on the grounds that the state can make special provisions for the backward classes. The delimitation question, thus, has no easy answers, and is likely to lead to much litigation. Vikas Pathak is deputy associate editor with The Indian Express and writes on national politics. He has over 17 years of experience, and has worked earlier with The Hindustan Times and The Hindu, among other publications. He has covered the national BJP, some key central ministries and Parliament for years, and has covered the 2009 and 2019 Lok Sabha polls and many state assembly polls. He has interviewed many Union ministers and Chief Ministers. Vikas has taught as a full-time faculty member at Asian College of Journalism, Chennai; Symbiosis International University, Pune; Jio Institute, Navi Mumbai; and as a guest professor at Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi. Vikas has authored a book, Contesting Nationalisms: Hinduism, Secularism and Untouchability in Colonial Punjab (Primus, 2018), which has been widely reviewed by top academic journals and leading newspapers. He did his PhD, M Phil and MA from JNU, New Delhi, was Student of the Year (2005-06) at ACJ and gold medalist from University Rajasthan College in Jaipur in graduation. He has been invited to top academic institutions like JNU, St Stephen's College, Delhi, and IIT Delhi as a guest speaker/panellist. ... Read More
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Delhi University will not teach Manusmriti, says VC after text included in Sanskrit course
The Manusmriti will not be taught at Delhi University 'in any form', its vice chancellor told The Indian Express on Thursday. The statement came days after the text was reportedly included in the reading list of a new undergraduate Sanskrit course at the university. The Manusmriti is a Hindu scripture authored by a medieval ascetic named Manu. It has been widely criticised for its gender and caste-based provisions. 'We will not teach any part of Manusmriti in any form in the University of Delhi,' Yogesh Singh, the Delhi University vice chancellor, told the newspaper. 'This direction has been issued even earlier by the vice chancellor's office, and departments should adhere to it.' Singh added that the Sanskrit department should not have included the text in the reading list in the first place in view of the earlier directives. The department had listed the Manusmriti as one of the primary texts in the syllabus for a four-credit discipline-specific core course titled 'Dharmashastra Studies', according to The Indian Express. A discipline-specific core course refers to a mandatory subject within a particular academic field that provides foundational knowledge and skills. The reading list for the course also included Hindu religious texts such as the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Puranas and the Arthashastra, the newspaper reported. In July 2024, Delhi University had rejected a proposal to include the Manusmriti in its Bachelor of Laws syllabus. The Faculty of Law had proposed to introduce the literary works Manusmriti with the Manubhasya of Medhatithi by GN Jha and Commentary of Manu Smriti – Smritichandrika by T Kristnasawmi Iyer as suggested readings for undergraduate law students. The proposal had triggered an uproar, with the Social Democratic Teachers Front, a collective of university teachers, writing to Singh. They told the vice chancellor that the introduction of any section or part of the Manusmriti is against the basic structure and principles of the Constitution. Singh had later said that a committee headed by him did not find the proposal 'appropriate' and rejected it. 'There are many other texts to teach [the] Indian knowledge tradition and we should not rely on any one text,' the vice chancellor had said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Bombay HC stays govt mandate for quota in minority institutions for Class 11 admissions
The Bombay High Court has temporarily suspended the Maharashtra government's order mandating minority educational institutions to reserve seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes for junior college admissions. Justices Karnik and Borkar issued the stay following petitions challenging the May 6 resolution. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted an interim stay on the Maharashtra government 's mandate to minority educational institutes to reserve seats for Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes for first-year junior college admissions.A bench of Justices M S Karnik and N R Borkar passed the order on a bunch of petitions filed by some minority institutions , challenging the May 6 resolution issued by the government's school education and sports department applying the constitutional/social reservations in minority education high court said it found substance in the petitioners' arguments and hence the mandate of social reservation will not be applicable for Class 11 admissions in minority educational HC bench said it was granting a stay on the clause of the resolution that included minority educational institutes for the directed the government to file its affidavit in reply to the petitions and posted the matter for further hearing on August high court on Wednesday questioned the government's rationale behind the resolution and asked if it was willing to withdraw the same or issue a corrigendum clarifying that minority institutes would not be included in the Thursday, government pleader Neha Bhide told the court that she has no instructions from the government to withdraw the resolution or issue a per the pleas, Article 15(5) of the Constitution excludes minority educational institutes, aided or unaided, from applicability of reservations for socially and educationally backward petitions claimed that under Article 30(1) (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions), the right of admission is exclusively with the management of the institution.A similar GR (government resolution) was issued in 2019 but it was withdrawn after petitions were filed then, they said.
