📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Supreme Court of India
Politics
Former Supreme Court Judge Rohinton Nariman Calls West Bengal SIR Decision ‘Completely Illegal’
✍️ The Indian Express
🗓 05 Oct 2026, 03:49 PM
👁 4
Former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Nariman described the recent West Bengal SIR order as an outright illegal removal of a citizen’s rights, sparking debate over the state’s legal actions.
Former Supreme Court justice Rohinton Nariman publicly condemned a recent order issued by the West Bengal authorities, labeling it a "completely illegal knocking out of citizen." Nariman, who retired from India’s apex court in 2022, said the decision undermines constitutional safeguards and sets a dangerous precedent for state power.
The order in question, referred to as the Bengal SIR, involved the removal of certain civic privileges of an individual, prompting legal experts to question its procedural validity. Nariman emphasized that any action that deprives a citizen of fundamental rights must adhere to due process, which he argued was absent in this case.
His remarks have reignited a broader debate on the balance between state authority and individual liberties in West Bengal. Opposition parties and civil‑society groups have echoed Nariman’s concerns, calling for a judicial review of the SIR order.
The state government, however, has defended the measure as necessary for public interest, asserting that it complies with existing legal frameworks. The controversy is expected to move to the courts, where the legality of the SIR will be examined in detail.
Nariman’s intervention underscores the continuing relevance of former judges in shaping public discourse on constitutional matters, especially when state actions appear to overstep legal boundaries.
The order in question, referred to as the Bengal SIR, involved the removal of certain civic privileges of an individual, prompting legal experts to question its procedural validity. Nariman emphasized that any action that deprives a citizen of fundamental rights must adhere to due process, which he argued was absent in this case.
His remarks have reignited a broader debate on the balance between state authority and individual liberties in West Bengal. Opposition parties and civil‑society groups have echoed Nariman’s concerns, calling for a judicial review of the SIR order.
The state government, however, has defended the measure as necessary for public interest, asserting that it complies with existing legal frameworks. The controversy is expected to move to the courts, where the legality of the SIR will be examined in detail.
Nariman’s intervention underscores the continuing relevance of former judges in shaping public discourse on constitutional matters, especially when state actions appear to overstep legal boundaries.