Supreme Court of India refused urgent plea to continue central forces in West Bengal post elections. Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said decision rests with executive.
The Supreme Court of India declined to entertain an urgent request for hearing in a plea seeking the continued deployment of central armed forces in West Bengal even after the elections were over. The petition alleged concerns about possible violence after polling, referring to similar incidents reported in the state in the past.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed by senior advocate V. Giri that the Court should step in immediately. Giri, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that central forces should continue to stay in the state after voting, pointing to the scale of violence that had been reported following the 2021 assembly elections.
During the proceedings, counsel for the Election Commission of India submitted that the Commission’s responsibilities are restricted to the conduct of elections, and that its mandate comes to an end once the electoral process is complete. The submission also clarified that issues relating to law and order after elections do not fall within the Commission’s scope.
The Bench declined to treat the matter as urgent and underscored the principle of separation of powers, along with the executive’s responsibility in governance.
It observed,
“The political executive will decide. Let the state be run by a political executive and not by the court.”
The Court indicated that such policy choices should be made by the government, not through judicial intervention.
That said, the Bench did not reject the plea outright. It clarified that the matter could be revisited at a later stage and suggested it may be taken up on May 11, along with other petitions concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state.
The development reflects continued concerns regarding election-related violence in West Bengal after previous polls, while also reaffirming the Court’s cautious stance on matters primarily within the executive’s domain.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE