By Sujit Bhar
Just before the horrible killing of tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir, West Bengal’s Murshidabad district had been shocked by a spate of communal hatred-fuelled violence and killings in which it has been alleged that several families, mostly Hindus, had to relocate to the adjacent district of Malda. While some violence and killings have been real, the alleged incidents of targeted violence against Hindus in the Muslim-majority district and the consequent relocation of families have not been substantiated, except in some biased media reports and certain social media videos doing the rounds.
Latching onto such hearsay “evidence” a petitioner, and lawyer Shashank Shekhar Jha, had petitioned the Supreme Court, alleging that the anti-Waqf (Amendment) Act violence in Murshidabad had reached such alarming levels that citizens were fleeing to neighbouring districts and even states. The plea stated that Hindu villagers had to escape via roads and boats to Malda district due to attacks from violent mobs, and several deaths had occurred during these incidents. The plea sought a court-monitored probe into the violent protests.
As the petition reached the top court bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, the judges took a deep look into the “evidence” presented and were furious. The visibly perturbed bench delivered a pointed rebuke to the petitioner and the baseless “evidence” therein, and Justice Kant questioned the integrity of the petition. “So you have filed the petition based on media reports. Where is the verification done by you?” asked the judge.
The reaction of the bench not only underscored the need for factual accuracy and responsibility in legal filings, but also illuminated the role of the judiciary in maintaining institutional decorum amid rising communal tensions and politically charged narratives. As it has come to be in recent times, little care is taken by litigants in providing substantial and credible proof in politically sensitive issues, leaving the courts to waste valuable time negotiating the dark alleys of political vendetta.
The Court stressed that filing such serious allegations without proper verification undermines the judicial process. “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,” said the bench. Justice Kant further emphasized that while the judiciary respects every citizen’s right to approach the Court, it must be done with a “sense of responsibility”.
The Controversial Petition And Act
As the petition cited large-scale violence in the Muslim-majority Murshidabad district, particularly in the areas of Jangipur, Samserganj, Dhuliyan, and Suti—over 200 arrests had been made in the wake of widespread vandalism, arson, and railway track blockades—it also alleged that the violence led to displacement of Hindus.
The petition invoked broader communal anxieties, hinting at a systemic breakdown of law and order and accused state authorities of inaction. However, the Court found that many of these claims lacked substantiated evidence and were instead based on unverified media and social media reports, a practice the bench strongly discouraged.
It may be noted that Murshidabad is a historically important district of West Bengal, where Hindus and Muslims have lived together for more than a thousand years. While it has often turned into a communal hotbed, it would take much more than a protest over a controversial act to break that harmony to such an extent as has been alleged in the petition.
However, to understand the backdrop of the protests, one must consider the Waqf (Amendment) Act itself. The Waqf Act, originally enacted to regulate Muslim charitable endowments, had long faced criticism for being opaque and subject to misuse. Amendments were introduced by the central government to enhance transparency and reduce encroachments and misappropriations in Waqf properties.
Among other things, the amendments aimed to:
- Ensure better auditing and accountability in Waqf boards.
- Curtail arbitrary land decisions.
- Introduce stricter rules for leasing Waqf properties.
While proponents saw these changes as necessary reforms, opponents—particularly in states like West Bengal—interpreted them as targeting the Muslim community’s economic rights. This led to the eruption of protests in regions like Murshidabad, where Muslims form a majority and Waqf properties are significant in number.
The recent protests spiralled into violence that resulted in three reported deaths, the torching of public property, and severe disruption of daily life. The blockade of railway tracks symbolized the level of organised aggression, which forced law enforcement to launch large-scale crackdowns.
However, the petitioner’s sweeping claims about migration, targeted attacks, and state complicity lacked verified on-ground evidence, which became the crux of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the plea.
Feeding The Fire
A key point of contention was the reliance on media and social media for framing the plea. In today’s hyper-digital environment, news spreads faster than verification processes can catch up. The petition referred to reports suggesting mass displacement, which were later either contradicted or found to be exaggerated.
The bench’s anger was particularly directed at this practice. “Don’t seek publicity,” Justice Kant warned, implying that the petition was crafted more to generate media attention than to present a factual and lega-lly sound case. The Court’s concern points to a growing pattern of using judicial platforms to push politicized narratives without accountability.
Legal experts caution that filing unverified petitions, especially those with communal undertones, can have unintended consequences. They risk:
- Further polarising already volatile situations.
- Misusing the court’s time and resources.
- Undermining genuine grievances that need redressal.
In the Murshidabad case, the Court rightly allowed the petitioner to withdraw and file a fresh plea with “better and appropriate particulars”. This was a lenient approach, considering the seriousness of the allegations and their possible ramifications.
The post Crying Wolf on A Whim appeared first on India Legal.