<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to consider a plea for a detailed probe by a retired judge-led special investigation team (SIT) into the Murshidabad violence in West Bengal in protests against the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.</p><p>A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh refused to entertain the plea filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal but granted him liberty to approach the high court for the relief.</p><p>The court told advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, Aggarwal, said, unless two or more states were involved, this court was not keen to examine the plea filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. </p><p>The bench also questioned the petitioner for not moving the high court and directly coming to the apex court.</p>.<p>"This practice of filing the petitions directly in the Supreme Court cannot be allowed. It is like demeaning the high courts," the bench said.</p><p>Sinha, however, claimed a threat to the petitioner's life if he approached the high court in light of the violence in the state.</p><p>He submitted that lawyers filing cases in other incidents of violence in the state were booked under false cases by the police, which allegedly colluded with the alleged violators of the crimes there.</p><p>In his plea, the petitioner alleged that he was aggrieved by the "biased approach" of the police and administration, the local authorities for "shielding the real culprits of the ghastly incidents".</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to consider a plea for a detailed probe by a retired judge-led special investigation team (SIT) into the Murshidabad violence in West Bengal in protests against the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.</p><p>A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh refused to entertain the plea filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal but granted him liberty to approach the high court for the relief.</p><p>The court told advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, Aggarwal, said, unless two or more states were involved, this court was not keen to examine the plea filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. </p><p>The bench also questioned the petitioner for not moving the high court and directly coming to the apex court.</p>.<p>"This practice of filing the petitions directly in the Supreme Court cannot be allowed. It is like demeaning the high courts," the bench said.</p><p>Sinha, however, claimed a threat to the petitioner's life if he approached the high court in light of the violence in the state.</p><p>He submitted that lawyers filing cases in other incidents of violence in the state were booked under false cases by the police, which allegedly colluded with the alleged violators of the crimes there.</p><p>In his plea, the petitioner alleged that he was aggrieved by the "biased approach" of the police and administration, the local authorities for "shielding the real culprits of the ghastly incidents".</p>
