‘We’re Facing Allegations…’ SC Flags Judiciary vs Executive Rift Amid Plea for President’s Rule in Bengal
The Supreme Court on Monday highlighted growing tensions between the judiciary and executive, amid a plea for President’s Rule in West Bengal following recent incidents of violence.
The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition seeking the imposition of President’s Rule in West Bengal over recent communal violence, made a veiled reference to sharp criticisms from Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and BJP leaders regarding the judiciary’s role in legislative matters.
Justice BR Gavai, who is set to become the next Chief Justice of India, stated, “As it is, we are alleged to have encroached upon parliamentary and executive functions,” responding to advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain’s plea to issue a mandamus on the state’s law and order situation.
The apex court’s observation comes days after Vice President Dhankhar criticized the Supreme Court for its recent Tamil Nadu judgment, which mandated that the President and state Governors must decide on returning Bills within a three-month deadline.
“There is a directive to the President by a recent judgment… So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super-parliament,” Dhankhar had said, questioning the limits of judicial intervention in a democratic setup.
Adding fuel to the ongoing debate, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey accused the Supreme Court of “inciting religious wars” and said the judiciary is “overstepping its mandate.” His remarks were swiftly disowned by the BJP, which clarified they were his “personal opinions.”
“If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then Parliament and State Assemblies should be shut,” Dubey had said in a statement that drew widespread criticism across the political spectrum.
The plea brought forward by Jain cited fresh instances of violence in Murshidabad and other districts in West Bengal, claiming multiple casualties and injuries. The advocate urged the court to consider invoking Article 356 and recommended central intervention to restore order.
This developing tension between two key pillars of democracy—the judiciary and the executive—has reignited debates on separation of powers and institutional respect. Legal experts note that while courts are empowered to interpret laws, their intervention in executive matters has historically been contentious.
