The Supreme Court on Monday declined to issue immediate directions on a plea seeking the deployment of paramilitary forces in West Bengal in response to recent violence in Murshidabad linked to the Waqf (Amendment) Act.

The matter was heard by a two-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih. During the proceedings, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain brought up a writ petition calling for the imposition of President’s Rule in the state. Responding sharply, the bench remarked, as quoted by India Today:
“You want us to issue a writ of mandamus to the President to impose this? We are already facing allegations of encroaching into the executive domain.”

In addition to the request for central forces, the petition also demanded the formation of a three-member inquiry committee, led by a retired Supreme Court judge, to investigate the Murshidabad violence that erupted after the Waqf (Amendment) Act was passed.

The Supreme Court has recently drawn political fire over two significant rulings: one directing the President to adhere to a timeline for decisions on bills forwarded by governors, and another staying certain provisions of the amended Waqf Act.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, addressing Rajya Sabha interns last week, criticized the judiciary for alleged overreach, claiming India was never meant to be a democracy where judges function as lawmakers, executive authorities, or a “super Parliament.”

Raising alarm over the unchecked powers of the judiciary, Dhankhar compared Article 142 of the Constitution to a “nuclear missile” perpetually at the judiciary’s disposal.

Echoing similar concerns, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey questioned the need for a Parliament if the Supreme Court continues to legislate through its verdicts.
“If the Supreme Court is to make laws, we might as well shut down Parliament,” he posted on X (formerly Twitter).

The petition seeking President’s Rule in West Bengal is now scheduled for hearing on Tuesday.