One of the petitions who requested a special investigation team (SIT) look into the communal violence that broke out in Murshidabad, West bengal, after demonstrations against the Waqf (Amendment) Act was dismissed by the supreme court on Monday.
Justices surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh's bench observed that counsel shashank Shekhar Jha's petition was filed hurriedly and included accusations against specific government officials, even though those individuals were not named as parties to the plea.
"You are accusing people who are not in front of us, A and B." If someone has been accused, you must expose them. The Bench questioned, "Can we accept those allegations behind those persons?"
When Jha responded, "I will make amendments,"
"We stated that you are in a huge hurry for this reason. Yes, giving voiceless people justice is a good thing, but it must be done properly. "Not like this," said the Bench.
It further objected to the wording used in the petitioner's petitions.
"Are all of these phrases meant to be included in pleadings? "Have you followed the standard of decency in pleadings?" the Bench asked.
"The terminology is also there in the press release by railways," Jha replied.
"These have to be internal messages. The Bench said, "We are attempting to understand and we can only offer you advice."
It warned Jha that the type of arguments presented before the highest court will be judged by future generations.
"A court of record is the supreme Court. We shall see in posterity. You anticipate it being reported, etc. However, you must exercise caution while issuing orders or submitting pleas. Do these assertions have to be made? Every member of the bar is respected by us. But with a feeling of accountability," said the Bench.
According to Jha, the case includes a violation of fundamental rights, and the violence has forced many people to leave their homes.
"Article 32 is triggered when there is a flagrant infringement of basic rights. Article 226 is more expansive. Article 32 is particular. "Many Bengalis also got in touch with me," he said.
"Where are they," the Bench insisted.
"I will include them (as parties). They got in touch yesterday. Many migrated to other States," Jha said.
"What is the basis of your information on migration to other States," the judge inquired.
"Media reports," I said, Jha.
In the end, the court allowed Jha to withdraw the petition and file a new one with stronger arguments and supporting documentation.
Advocate vishal Tiwari also filed another petition, but it was dropped after Tiwari asked for it to be amended to include remarks about Chief Justice of india (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna.
"Submit a new appeal. You are free to raise any arguments you like. Preserve the institution's dignity and decorum. Averments ought to be polite and considerate. Article 32 pleas must present compelling legal arguments supported by compelling legal evidence. When we sit here, we forget the rest. While permitting Tiwari to withdraw his petition, the court stated, "Liberty granted to withdraw and file fresh plea with fresh averments taking into account subsequent developments."
Tiwari moved the court seeking the constitution of a five-member judicial enquiry commission headed by a retired supreme court judge to investigate the communal violence that erupted in West bengal following protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
The petition claims that soon after the modified legislation was passed, violence broke out in the districts of Murshidabad and North 24 Parganas.
In addition to prohibitory orders and internet bans in several areas of Murshidabad, more than 150 people were arrested. The appeal also cited comparable demonstrations in Bengaluru, Chennai, Manipur, and Jammu & Kashmir.
He claimed that hate speech and political incitement by those holding constitutional offices were the causes of the violence rather than its natural occurrence.
Despite being given in the name of free speech, the PIL said that these remarks have exceeded the line into incitement and communal provocation, endangering both public order and constitutional norms.
In response to the violence that erupted in Murshidabad over the Waqf (Amendment) Act, the supreme court earlier today refused to issue any immediate orders on a plea seeking the deployment of paramilitary troops in West Bengal.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel