 |
|
The Supreme Court of India found itself at the center of a complex debate regarding the separation of powers as it heard a plea concerning the violence in Murshidabad, West Bengal. The backdrop of this hearing was marked by recent criticisms suggesting that the judiciary, through its interventions and rulings, was encroaching upon the domains of the executive and the parliament. Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justice A.G. Masih, formed the bench that addressed these concerns directly, acknowledging the allegations leveled against the court. The specific case that brought this issue to the forefront was an application seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention in the wake of the violence that had erupted in Murshidabad. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the petitioner, sought permission to introduce additional documents aimed at presenting new facts related to a pending petition concerning the post-poll violence in West Bengal back in 2021. Justice Gavai's response encapsulated the court's awareness of the criticisms. He questioned the petitioner's request for a mandamus directing the Union government, highlighting the existing allegations of the judiciary overstepping its boundaries into the legislative and executive spheres. This exchange occurred against the backdrop of two significant instances where the Supreme Court's actions had drawn considerable attention and, subsequently, criticism. The first instance involved the Supreme Court's ruling on April 8, which declared the actions of the Tamil Nadu Governor, R.N. Ravi, as illegal and erroneous. Governor Ravi had reserved ten bills for the President's consideration after they had already undergone reconsideration by the state Assembly. The Supreme Court not only invalidated this action but also established a specific timeline for Governors to adhere to when deciding on bills presented to them. This ruling was perceived by some as an overreach of judicial authority into the legislative process, specifically concerning the Governor's constitutional role. The second instance involved the Supreme Court's flagging of certain aspects of the new Waqf legislation. This prompted BJP MP Nishikant Dubey to publicly criticize the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, blaming him for causing "all civil wars in the country." While the BJP later distanced itself from Dubey's comments, the incident underscored the sensitivity surrounding the judiciary's involvement in matters perceived as falling within the purview of the legislature. Justice Gavai's remarks during the Murshidabad violence hearing were interpreted as a direct reference to these two incidents and the subsequent criticisms they generated. The court was clearly cognizant of the perception that it was overstepping its boundaries and was attempting to address these concerns while still fulfilling its constitutional duty to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law.
The petition related to the Murshidabad violence sought a crucial directive to the Union Government, urging it to exercise its powers under Article 355 and Article 356 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the deteriorating conditions in West Bengal posed a significant threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India, warranting the Union's intervention. Article 355 outlines the Union government's responsibility to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbances. Article 356, often referred to as 'President's Rule,' deals with situations where the constitutional machinery in a state has failed. The invocation of these articles is a serious matter, typically reserved for extreme circumstances where the state government is unable or unwilling to maintain law and order. The fresh application submitted to the Supreme Court emphasized the urgency of the situation, noting that the pending petition related to the 2021 post-poll violence was scheduled for a hearing soon. The application specifically requested permission to file an additional application seeking the appointment of a high-powered committee to investigate the incidents of violence, human rights violations, and crimes against women that had occurred between 2022 and April 2025. This committee, as proposed, would be headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and include two retired High Court judges. The proposed committee's mandate would be to thoroughly investigate the incidents of violence, particularly the recent violence in Murshidabad following protests against the Waqf legislation, and to submit a comprehensive report to the court. This request for an independent investigation highlights the petitioner's lack of confidence in the state government's ability to impartially investigate the matter and provide justice to the victims. Furthermore, the plea sought a direction to the central government to deploy paramilitary forces in the disturbed areas of West Bengal. The rationale behind this request was to ensure the safety and security of citizens, protecting their lives and property from further violence. The petitioners argued that the deployment of central forces was necessary to restore order and create an environment conducive to a fair and impartial investigation. In addition to seeking central intervention, the plea also urged the state government to take all necessary measures to protect the life, liberty, and dignity of its citizens. The petitioners emphasized the importance of implementing the provisions contained in Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution of India in letter and spirit. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, and Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. The petitioners argued that the state government had failed to uphold these fundamental rights, leading to the escalating violence and the need for judicial intervention.
The crux of the issue lies in the delicate balance between judicial review and the separation of powers. While the judiciary has the constitutional mandate to interpret laws and ensure that the executive and legislative branches act within the bounds of the Constitution, its interventions are often perceived as encroaching upon the functions of these other branches. The Supreme Court's actions in the Tamil Nadu Governor case and the Waqf legislation case serve as prime examples of this tension. In the Tamil Nadu Governor case, the court's decision to invalidate the Governor's actions and set a timeline for gubernatorial decisions on bills was seen by some as interfering with the Governor's constitutional prerogative. Similarly, the court's flagging of aspects of the Waqf legislation drew criticism from political figures who felt that the judiciary was overstepping its bounds by commenting on matters that were primarily the responsibility of the legislature. These criticisms highlight the challenges faced by the judiciary in maintaining its independence and fulfilling its constitutional duties without being perceived as partisan or overreaching. The Murshidabad violence case further complicates this dynamic, as it involves a request for the Supreme Court to direct the Union government to invoke Article 355 and Article 356, essentially calling for central intervention in a state matter. Such an intervention would have significant political implications and could be interpreted as an erosion of the state's autonomy. The Supreme Court's decision on this matter will have far-reaching consequences, not only for the specific case of Murshidabad but also for the broader relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. The court must carefully weigh the potential impact of its actions on the federal structure of the country and the balance of power among the different branches of government. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's role is to uphold the Constitution and ensure that the rule of law is maintained. However, in doing so, it must be mindful of the delicate balance of power and the potential for its actions to be interpreted as an overreach of judicial authority. The Murshidabad violence case presents a significant challenge to the court, requiring it to navigate complex legal and political issues while striving to uphold its constitutional mandate.