SC declines PIL for SIT probe into Murshidabad Waqf Bill violence
The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the violent protests that erupted in Murshidabad, West Bengal, over the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025.
A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant refused to entertain the petition, observing that the matter fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The Court noted that the petitioner had a constitutionally viable remedy under Article 226, and thus the invocation of Article 32 was unwarranted.
“We see no reason to entertain this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, as the petitioner has an alternative, efficacious remedy to approach the High Court,” the Bench recorded in its order.
Filed by Satish Kumar Agarwal, the PIL alleged that state authorities failed to maintain law and order during the unrest between April 8 and April 12, 2025, which reportedly led to incidents of arson, looting, and the death of several individuals from the Hindu community.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha argued that the state’s law enforcement machinery had "miserably failed" to safeguard the life and property of residents, triggering displacement and fear among the affected population. He also cited a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) report highlighting alleged rights violations during the violence.
However, the Bench was unpersuaded, terming the matter as one confined to a single state. “Tell us who is preventing you from going to the High Court. It is the constitutional court having powers even better than the Supreme Court under Article 32. The case pertains to only one state. What message does it give to the High Court?” Justice Surya Kant remarked during the hearing.
While the counsel referred to the NHRC’s findings as “disturbing,” the Court held that they did not justify bypassing the High Court.
The Bench also took note of the possibility of the petitioner feeling unsafe but assured that technology-based access to justice could be availed. “If the petitioner perceives any threat to his life and liberty, he may file the petition online. The hearing can also take place through video conferencing,” the Court said, directing the High Court to facilitate the process.
In a pointed observation, Court cautioned against the misuse of PILs, suggesting that some such petitions are motivated by publicity
“These are only to create a scene. This is all hype being created, we know all this,” the Bench added.