Supreme Court refuses action under Article 355 in Bengal

Murshidabad violence case

New Delhi – The Supreme Court has declined to issue immediate directions on a petition seeking deployment of paramilitary forces in the violence-hit Murshidabad district of Bengal. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the petitioner, urged the Centre to act under Article 355, citing the grave nature of the situation. The Court, however, responded by saying, “We are already being accused of encroaching upon the domain of the legislature. In such a scenario, do you expect us to instruct the President ? This request cannot be accepted.” The next hearing has been scheduled for 29 May.

The petition also demands the formation of a three-member committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to probe the Murshidabad violence. The Court rejected this demand as well, stating that constitutional limitations must be respected before considering such requests.

Difference between Article 355 and Article 356

As per Article 355, when a State Government fails to function in accordance with the Constitution, the Centre has the right to intervene. The key difference between Articles 355 and 356 is that under Article 356, President’s Rule is imposed and the State Government is dissolved. In contrast, under Article 355, the State Government remains intact, but all internal and external security powers shift to the Centre. The State Police functions directly under the Centre’s command.