Violence flared in Murshidabad over the controversial Waqf Amendment Act, leaving at least three dead and forcing the Calcutta High Court to order boots on the ground. The court’s urgent Saturday hearing turned into a direct intervention, with scathing observations about the state’s sluggish response and a firm directive to bring in Central Armed Police Forces.
The courtroom saw a dramatic rebuke from the Bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Raja Basu Chowdhury. Their verdict? The West Bengal government had failed to nip the chaos in the bud. “Constitutional courts,” the judges remarked, “cannot stand idle while the streets burn.” According to them, earlier deployment of central forces might have prevented the bloodshed.
What follows is an unmistakable signal of judicial impatience. The court didn’t just order deployment in Murshidabad—it left the door open for similar action across other districts if unrest spreads. Central forces are to work alongside the civil administration to restore calm, with immediate authority to act wherever the fire spreads.
The order came in response to a public interest plea filed by West Bengal Assembly opposition leader Suvendu Adhikari and a co-petitioner. They argued that the violence was spiraling beyond the reach of local law enforcement and needed central intervention. The state government, on the other hand, tried to paint the PIL as politically tinted and insisted it had the situation under control—pointing to 138 arrests and the existing deployment of BSF personnel.
But the court wasn’t convinced. Noting what it called “internal disturbances” in parts of the state, it insisted on a muscular response and demanded a full report on compliance. The interim order remains in place till April 17, with both sides asked to file detailed affidavits before the matter resumes.
Behind the legal battle is a larger storm brewing across Bengal, where the amended Waqf law has touched off protests, allegations of state apathy, and now, a central-versus-state standoff playing out under the watchful eye of the judiciary.
