Vishal Tiwari filed a plea seeking an independent investigation into the matter, also stating that it involved hate speech and provocative remarks.
NEW DELHI: Today, 21st April, The Supreme Court on Monday criticised a petitioner for filing a hasty plea seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the recent communal violence in Murshidabad, West Bengal, which took place during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh expressed concern over the approach taken by advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, who had filed the petition. The Court observed that the plea included serious allegations against certain government officials, but those individuals were not made parties to the case.
“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.
In response, Jha said:
“I will make amendments.”
The Court pointed out that the petition appeared rushed and advised the petitioner to follow proper legal procedures.
“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.
The judges also took issue with some of the language used in the petition, calling it inappropriate.
“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 questioned.
Jha defended the language by saying:
“The terminology is also there in the press release by railways.”
To this, the Bench responded:
“These must be internal communications. We can only advise you and we are trying to understand.”
This violence reportedly happened during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Vishal Tiwari had filed a plea seeking an independent investigation into the matter, also stating that it involved hate speech and provocative remarks.
He added that, “Yesterday, a Member of Parliament made a very serious comment about the Supreme Court. I request permission to present some more relevant facts.”
The Court allowed him to withdraw the petition and said that he can file a new and proper petition with all the necessary parties and details.
Justice Surya Kant, who was hearing the matter, stressed the importance of being honest and respectful in court:
“We must always uphold honesty and respect for the institution.“
During the hearing, he referred to the petition as Item 48 and said:
“Consider what needs to be included and what should be removed. Avoid seeking attention. Think calmly and clearly.“
He further said:
“We respect everyone who wishes to approach us, and they are welcome. However, they must do so responsibly and be careful about what claims or statements they make.“
Justice Kant also reminded the lawyer that every petition and argument becomes part of the Supreme Court’s official records:
“These are brief moments that may be highlighted in the news because you filed this petition. However, the Supreme Court is a court of record, meaning your actions and arguments will be part of the official record. In the future, people will see that in a particular year, such a petition was filed. As a responsible member of the legal profession, it’s not appropriate to make these claims.“
Why Article 32?
Justice Surya Kant asked why the petition was brought directly to the Supreme Court under Article 32, and not first filed in the High Court under Article 226:
“Why didn’t you use Article 226 in the High Court instead?“
To this, the lawyer replied:
“People from West Bengal came to me.“
Justice Kant then asked:
“Please provide more details about these people.“
The lawyer explained:
“People are being forced to leave and go to nearby areas. I have shared news reports, and the internet is being blocked.“
When asked about the source of his information, the lawyer said:
“The reason I came here is because on April 8, supposed protestors blocked the national highway. People took to the streets claiming to protest.“
Justice Kant advised the lawyer to present the issue in a more factual and structured way:
“How did law and order break down, and what actions can be taken to fix it? This is probably how you should bring up the issue, instead of making statements that seem offensive. You are accusing individuals government officials who are not part of this case.“
He also reminded the lawyer about the seriousness of making accusations in court:
“Can we accept these accusations and look into them without their knowledge? You haven’t included them in the case. Please file a proper petition. Help us ensure justice for those who might not have a voice.“
To this, the lawyer agreed:
“Very well, I’ll make changes in my petition.“
The court permitted the petition to be withdrawn and said a new one could be filed with accurate details and necessary parties.
Justice Surya Kant added:
“Make the necessary changes, and I will add them as a party in the case. This is why we said you were rushing earlier, and you are still in a hurry. You want to make changes, but we are advising you to take your time. File a proper petition and help us do justice for those who might be the real victims.“
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT STANCE:
![[BREAKING] Supreme Court Asks Advocate Vishal Tiwari to File Fresh Plea on Murshidabad Violence During Waqf Act Protests](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/image-282.png?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court took strong action after three people lost their lives during violent protests in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district. The court said it cannot just sit quietly while public safety is in danger. So, it ordered that Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) must be sent to Murshidabad to help bring peace and protect people.
Violent protests broke out recently in many districts like Malda, Murshidabad, South 24 Parganas, and Hooghly. The protestors were angry about a new law related to Waqf properties. During the violence, many police vans and other vehicles were set on fire. Stones were thrown at police and roads were blocked, creating chaos in many places.
ALSO READ: LEGAL EXPLAINER| Waqf & The Waqf Amendment Bill 2024: Key Legal Changes & Impact
The Calcutta High Court clearly stated that every person in India has the right to life and the state government must protect the lives and properties of all citizens.
In strong words, the court said:
“Constitutional Courts cannot be a mute spectator and embroil itself in technical defences when the safety and security of the people are at danger. The deployment of Central Armed forces earlier could have escalated the situation as it appears adequate measures have not been taken in time.”
The court called the situation in Bengal “serious and unstable,” and said that the police and other authorities must act quickly and strictly to stop the violence and punish those who hurt innocent people. The court stressed this must be done urgently, saying action must be taken on a “war footing.”
The judges also said:
“We cannot turn a blind eye to the various reports that have surfaced which prima facie show vandalism in few districts of the state of West Bengal. The purpose of deployment of the para-military forces or Central Armed Police Force is only for the purpose of facilitating the state administration to ensure the safety and security of the population in this State.”
They added that it cannot be denied that “there is an internal disturbance” in some districts of West Bengal.
The High Court has directed that the Central forces will work together with the state government and not separately. Both the Centre and the state government have been told to submit detailed reports about the current situation in the affected areas.
This decision was made by a special bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Raja Basu Chowdhury.
This special bench was quickly formed by the Chief Justice to hear an urgent petition filed by Suvendu Adhikari, the Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly.
He had asked the court to send central forces to Murshidabad to handle the situation.
Case Title:
(1) VISHAL TIWARI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 377/2025
(2) SHASHANK SHEKHAR JHA Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR., Diary No. 20020-2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
