SC on Article 355 Plea Over Murshidabad Violence: “Already Facing Allegations of Overreach”

New Delhi, April 21, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India on Monday reacted sharply to a petition seeking the Centre’s intervention under Article 355 of the Constitution in the wake of violence in Murshidabad district of West Bengal. The court’s response comes amid growing concerns over judicial interference in executive and legislative matters.

The petition was mentioned by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who sought urgent deployment of central forces in Murshidabad following the April 11 violence during anti-Waqf Amendment Act protests. In response, Justice BR Gavai, who was presiding over the bench, observed:

“You want us to issue a mandamus directing the Union? As it is, we are already being accused of intruding into Parliamentary and Executive functions.”

This statement was a veiled reference to the recent backlash the judiciary faced over its direction to the President regarding assent to bills, which drew sharp criticism from top constitutional authorities.

Background: What Sparked the Plea?

Violence broke out in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district during protests against the Waqf Amendment Act. According to reports, three individuals died, while several public and private properties were torched. Protesters allegedly attacked law enforcement, prompting the deployment of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). Internet services were suspended temporarily to prevent the spread of misinformation.

Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the petitioner, argued that the situation in Bengal constituted “external aggression and internal disturbance”, qualifying for central intervention under Article 355. He also sought permission to file an additional application to submit more facts for the court’s consideration.

Article 355: What Does It Entail?

Article 355 of the Indian Constitution mandates the Union Government to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that governance in each state is carried on in accordance with the Constitution. However, the application of this article is rare and politically sensitive, often stirring federal tensions.

Judiciary vs Executive: A Brewing Storm

The Supreme Court’s reserved stance appears to reflect ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive. Just last week, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticised the apex court’s directive to the President, stating:

“We have judges who legislate, perform executive functions, and act as a super Parliament with zero accountability.”

His remarks sparked a nationwide debate on the separation of powers and the extent to which the judiciary should intervene in administrative functions.

What’s Next?

The Supreme Court allowed Vishnu Shankar Jain to file an application in the matter, which is expected to be taken up on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the situation in Murshidabad has largely stabilised, but the political and legal implications of the violence — and the plea under Article 355 — continue to resonate at the national level.

Key Takeaways:

• Murshidabad witnessed violent protests on April 11, leading to deaths and destruction.
• The Supreme Court expressed reluctance in directing the Union to act under Article 355, citing concerns of judicial overreach.
• The petition was filed by Vishnu Shankar Jain, seeking central intervention and deployment of forces.
• The issue is part of a larger debate on judiciary vs executive boundaries in Indian democracy.