New Delhi: 

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its displeasure over petitions linked to the recent violence in West Bengal's Murshidabad during protests against the Waqf (Amendment Act). It observed that the averments should be decent, respectful, and the plea under Article 32 must raise good questions of law with interesting legal material. "Yes, justice to the voiceless is good, but do so in a proper manner. Not like this," it remarked.

The dual cases came up before the division bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which emphasised that the counsel should come with a sense of responsibility when they file petitions. The bench stressed that averments should be decent, respectful and added, "Any plea under Article 32 must raise good questions of law with interesting legal material. The rest of the things we forget when we sit here."

Article 32 of the Constitution guarantees the right to constitutional remedies and enables individuals to approach the apex court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

The public interest litigations were filed by advocates Vishal Tiwari and Shashank Shekhar Jha in connection with violence in West Bengal. The bench said lawyers should not file petitions "just to come in the news" and stressed that the Supreme Court is a court of record. "Posterity will see. You have to be careful when filing pleadings, and it respects every member of the Bar," the bench observed.

The bench allowed Tiwari to withdraw his petition and file a fresh one. However, Jha insisted that he is not willing to file a fresh petition. The bench cited some expressions used in the petition, which it did not approve of, and added that it seems he was in great hurry.

The bench further queried him regarding the source of information in connection with migration. Jha said it was based on media reports. On the aspect of the allegation regarding the failure of law and order in Bengal, the bench said Jha must detail what measures can be taken.

The bench asked him how many years of experience he had and how many PILs he had filed. To that, Jha replied he had been practising for seven years and had filed three to four PILs. The bench asked, "Have you learnt the art of pleadings from a senior?". It further queried on the drafting of a plea under Article 32. Jha replied that people who were affected by violence had contacted him, many of whom migrated to other states, and he will include them in the matter.

The bench said the lawyer has made allegations against individuals who are not before the court, and added that if allegations were made against anyone, then that person should be impleaded. To this, Jha said he would make amendments to his petition.

Read More : 

Railways Seeks Feedback From Passengers For setting AC EMU Timetable