The West Bengal government has vehemently opposed a plea filed in the Supreme Court seeking the imposition of Article 356—President’s Rule—in the state. Describing the petition as a “bundle of reckless and politically charged allegations,” the state government asserted that there is no constitutional or legal justification for such a drastic measure.
The petition, reportedly filed by a political activist and supported by certain opposition groups, alleges a “complete breakdown of constitutional machinery” in West Bengal, citing rising incidents of political violence, administrative failure, and alleged suppression of dissent.
In its counter-affidavit filed before the apex court, the West Bengal government maintained that law and order is firmly under control, and that isolated incidents are being exaggerated to create a false narrative.
“The allegations made in the plea are not only baseless but also an attempt to destabilize a democratically elected government. Governance is being carried out as per constitutional norms, and no situation exists that would warrant invoking Article 356,” the affidavit stated.
The state also cautioned the court against entertaining petitions that stem from political agendas, arguing that such moves undermine the principles of cooperative federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
Senior legal experts appearing for the state highlighted previous Supreme Court judgments that establish clear conditions under which President’s Rule may be imposed—none of which, they argue, are present in the current situation.
“Using the judiciary to score political points is a dangerous precedent. There must be a high threshold for judicial review of such extraordinary constitutional powers,” one of the state’s legal representatives told the media.
The petitioner, on the other hand, has alleged that the administration in West Bengal has collapsed, especially in the wake of recent violence in districts like Murshidabad and Cooch Behar. They argue that the central government must intervene to restore order and constitutional governance.
However, the state government has submitted data to the court showing steps taken to manage law and order, including arrests, compensation to victims of violence, and security deployments.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing in the coming weeks, asking both sides to submit additional documentation if needed.
Political observers note that the legal battle over Article 356 has significant implications not only for West Bengal but also for the balance of power between state and central governments.
The outcome could set a major precedent for how federal disputes and law-and-order issues are interpreted under the Constitution.
