New Delhi/IBNS: The Supreme Court on Monday referred to getting accused of intruding into Parliament's domains in response to a plea seeking Presidential rule in the violence-hit West Bengal, media reports said.

The top court made the observation while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking imposition of Presidential rule in West Bengal, where at least 500 Hindus were forced to flee Murshidabad over violent anti-Waqf (Amendment) Act protests.

"You want us to issue a direction to the union government to impose President's rule in Bengal? As it is, we are accused of intruding into the executive and legislative domains," said Justice B R Gavai, who was one in the two-judge bench comprising Justice A G Masih, as quoted by The Times of India.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar was arguing for a four-year-old PIL which was filed by Ranjana Agnihotri.

Advocate Shankar requested the top court bench to take note of the recent Hindu exodus that occurred in several parts of West Bengal.

Earlier, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankar slammed the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India for intruding into Parliament.

"A prime minister who imposed an Emergency was held accountable in 1977 and therefore, let there be no doubt about it, the Constitution is for the people, and it's a repository of safeguarding it... that of elected representatives. They are the ultimate masters as to what Constitution content will be.

"There is no visualisation in the Constitution of any authority above Parliament. Parliament is supreme and that being the situation, let me tell you, it is as supreme as every individual in the country," Dhankhar said.

The allegations against the Supreme Court have also been levelled by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs, Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma.

The controversy erupted over the Supreme Court's imposition of a three-month deadline to the President to decide on bills sent to her by the Governors.

The outrage against the Supreme Court came after it handed over a big win to the Tamil Nadu government by saying Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold his assent to 10 key bills was "illegal" and "arbitrary".

The top court said it was illegal for the Governor to reserve bills for the President after withholding assent.

The court said the Governor should have given his assent to the bill when it was re-presented to him by the assembly.

Citing the Constitution, the court said the Governor can give his assent, withhold assent or reserve the bill for President's consideration.

The ruling DMK has been accusing RN Ravi, a former IPS officer, of blocking bills and acting as the representative of the country's ruling BJP after assuming the post.