Murshidabad Violence : Supreme Court Rebukes Petitioner Over Irresponsible Averments, Allows Filing Of Fresh Plea

The Supreme Court today objected to some of the averments made in a petition seeking a Court-monitored investigation into the violence which took place at Murshidabad, West Bengal, during the protests against the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh told Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha, the petitioner who appeared in person, that one has to be careful and responsible with the averments made in a petition filed in the Supreme Court.

"We should always maintain the integrity and decorum of the institution...Think about what averments are to be made, and what are required to be struck off. Don't seek publicity. Think with a cool mind," Justice Kant told Jha.  Justice Kant said that since the Supreme Court is a Court of record, the pleadings filed in the Court will be there for posterity, and hence, there was a need to maintain decency in the pleadings and avoid offensive statements.

"We respect every citizen who wants to come to us, they are welcome. But with a sense of responsibility. Be careful about what averments are made," Justice Kant told him. Justice Kant further asked Jha about his standing in the bar and experience with a senior. He replied that he has seven years of practice and has filed a few PILs in the past. When Justice Kant further asked why the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, he replied that several persons from West Bengal, who moved out of the State due to violence, had contacted him. Justice Kant then flagged that the petition did not contain any details of such persons. "Give us the details of such persons," Justice Kant asked.

On being questioned about the source of information regarding migration of people to other States, Jha said, "media reports." "So you have filed the petition based on media reports! Where is the verification done by you?" Justice Kant asked.

Justice Kant took objection to certain words and phrases used in the petition. When the petitioner said that such phrases were part of a communication issued by the Railways to the Centre regarding the situation in Bengal, Justice Kant asked how he got hold of such internal communications.

"Don't use the word here...Are you supposed to use such expressions in pleadings? There cannot be averments which are on the face of it offending," Justice Kant questioned Jha further. The Judge also pointed out that the petitioner has made allegations against persons who are not made parties in the petition. When the petitioner said that the allegations were made against government functionaries, Justice Kant asked how the Court could pass an order without hearing them.

"You are making allegations against individuals who are not before us. Can we accept these allegations and examine them behind their back? You have not impleaded them," Justice Kant said.

When Jha agreed to amend the petition, Justice Kant said, "That is why we said, you were in hurry...Yes, justice to voiceless people must be done,  but do in proper manner. Not like this."

Ultimately, the Court dismissed Jha's petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with "better and appropriate particulars."

The Court also allowed the withdrawal of a similar petition filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari, after he said that he wanted to bring on record certain "provocative statements" made after the filing of the petition, including the remarks of an MP against the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India.

Briefly stated, the Court was dealing with two petitions: first, filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari seeking constitution of a 5-member Judicial Enquiry Commission headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge for investigation; and second, filed by Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team to investigate the matter under the monitoring of the Court.

The petitioners urged the Court to seek a report from the State of West Bengal regarding the violence as well as measures to ensure the protection of lives and properties of people. They also sought directions for action against provocative speeches made by certain persons.

Background

After the Waqf Amendment Act came into effect on April 8, ongoing protests turned violent in Murshidabad and left atleast 3 dead, several injured and many persons displaced. Vehicles got vandalized, a local MP's house was attacked and even a police jeep was set on fire.

To restore order, authorities imposed Section 144 CrPC and temporarily suspended internet services in the area, while people who got displaced sought shelter in nearby districts (such as Malda). As per reports, 274 people were arrested in relation to the violence and 60 FIRs registered.

Taking into consideration the severity of the situation, the Calcutta High Court ordered deployment of Central Forces in the Murshidabad district. On April 17, it directed restrictions on provocative speeches in the area and asked the state government to form a team to look into the violence and rehabilitate those who had fled from their homes. The central forces were directed to remain in the district.

On April 16, while dealing with the pleas challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, CJI Sanjiv Khanna appealed to people against resorting to violence. The CJI expressed that the incidents of violence were "disturbing" and once the matter is before the Court, such things should not be happening.

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Click Here To Read/Download Order