Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a petition seeking probe by CBI or a Special Investigation Team into the recent incidents of violence at Murshidabad, West Bengal which allegedly targeted Hindu locals.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and asked the petitioner to approach the Calcutta High Court for appropriate reliefs. Insofar as it was alleged that the petitioner and counsels in earlier cases pertaining to Sandeshkhali and Rampurhat violence were "terrorized", the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file and argue the case before the High Court online.

"We see no reason to entertain the petition filed before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, as the petitioner has an alternate, efficacious remedy to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner perceives any threat to his life and liberty, he may file a petition online before the High Court and the hearing can also take place through video-conferencing. For this purpose, we direct the Registrar General of the High Court to extend such facilities to the petitioner", the Court ordered.

After the order was dictated, the petitioner's counsel contended that pursuant to earlier similar cases, the state government lodged cases against the petitioners and their counsels. Justice Kant responded to the same, saying, "this is all hype being created, we know everything".

Notably, while disposing of the case, the bench deprecated the practice of writ petitions being filed directly before the Supreme Court, while by-passing the Article 226 jurisdiction of High Courts. "What prevents you from going to the High Court - a constitutional Court having powers better than Supreme Court under Article 32...this practice of filing direct writ petitions before Supreme Court, we will deal with very seriously. We are telling the Bar. Unless we find that multiple states are involved...this amounts to demeaning HCs...", remarked Justice Kant.

The judge further opined that the Calcutta High Court has been dealing with the subject issues effectively. "In a case pertaining to issue of one state, where the High Court has been dealing with everything so effectively, today what message will go (if we interfere)?" posed Justice Kant. At this point, the petitioner's counsel expressed that the petitioner is willing to go before the High Court, but his life and liberty may be protected. Accordingly, the Court permitted filing of the case (and appearance therein) through online mode.

The petitioner, former Vice-President of Hindu Mahasabha, approached the Court assailing "killing" of Hindus in Murshidabad between 8-12 April, 2025. His prayer was for the incidents to be investigated either by an SIT, headed by a former Supreme Court judge as its Chairman, or by CBI. Earlier cases pertaining to Birbhum massacre (Rampurhat violence) and Sandeshkhali violence were cited to claim that the petitioners and counsels were threatened, and ultimately nothing happened in those cases.

Prior to this, the Supreme Court dealt with two other petitions related to the Murshidabad Violence incidents: 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 in these two cases 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.

While the first petition was withdrawn as Advocate Vishal Tiwari said that he wanted to bring on record certain "provocative statements" made after the filing of the petition, the second petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition with "better and appropriate particulars". In this second case, the Court rebuked the petitioner for certain irresponsible averments and underlined the need to maintain decency in the pleadings.

Appearance: Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha and AoR Anantha Narayana MG

Case Title: SATISH KUMAR AGGARWAL Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 455/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order