New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reacted to allegations of judicial overreach and the recent controversial remarks made by some BJP leaders when a lawyer sought a direction to the Centre regarding recent incidents of violence in West Bengal.
Some BJP leaders had made such remarks against the top court following its landmark judgment that effectively set a deadline for the President and Governors to clear Bills passed by the legislature for the second time.
Justice BR Gavai, the next Chief Justice, said the court is “facing allegations of encroaching into executive” domain. The lawyer, Vishnu Shankar Jain, mentioned his pending plea linked to Bengal that had recently faced violence during protests against the Waqf Amendment Act.
The advocate argued that there was a need for paramilitary forces to remain on the ground to ensure peace and stability in the state. He also apprised the court of the fact that his pending plea, filed after post-poll violence in Bengal in 2022, had been listed for tomorrow (Tuesday).
In another new petition, he sought directions to the Centre to deploy paramilitary forces and set up a panel of three retired judges to probe the waqf act-related violence, especially in Murshidabad district of Bengal.
In response to his petition, Justice BR Gavai said, “You want us to issue a writ of mandamus to the President to impose this? As it is, we are facing allegations of encroaching into executive (domain). Please.”
Gavai will take over as Chief Justice next month. This remark shows that the Supreme Court has been closely following the remarks passed by some leaders against the judiciary.
Earlier, some BJP leaders criticised the Supreme Court following its judgment in the Tamil Nadu case in which it ruled that the Governor’s decision to withhold Bills indefinitely was ‘arbitrary.’ It also set aside the Governor’s actions using its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The order by the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan also said that only courts have the prerogative to provide recommendations regarding the constitutionality of a Bill and the Executive is supposed to exercise restraint in such matters, reported the Indian Express.
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had said Parliament must be shut down if the Supreme Court makes all decisions. “The Supreme Court is crossing its limits. If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and State Assembly should be shut,” he had said. However, the BJP had distanced itself from such remarks.
Earlier, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar also targeted the Supreme Court. “We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India and on what basis?…Article 142 has become a nuclear missile against Democratic forces, available to judiciary 24 x 7”, he had said.
‘Get consent of Attorney-General for criminal contempt case against Dubey’
The Supreme Court on Monday also told a petitioner that he didn’t need its permission to file a criminal contempt plea against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey over his remarks against the top court.
When the lawyer asked the top court to initiate a criminal contempt case against Dubey for his remarks against the court and the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the division bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih said that the petitioner needed to get the consent of the Attorney-General.
“Make a case before AG. He will give permission,” Justice Gavai remarked, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
According to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a private individual can file a contempt of court petition in Supreme Court only after obtaining the consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
According to reports, some lawyers had written to the AG seeking permission to file contempt of court petitions against Dubey under the Contempt of Courts Act.
