The Supreme Court appears to be navigating the Waqf (Amendment) Act with measured constitutional deference, while raising targeted concerns over specific provisions. The bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna has neither stayed the implementation of the Act nor challenged the Parliament’s legislative competence. The focus has been limited to three areas of judicial inquiry:
1.The inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards;
2.The status of properties previously declared as waqf by courts; and
3.The de-notification process of waqf lands pending inquiry.
Far from rejecting the law, the Court is exercising its role as a constitutional sentinel, ensuring that reforms are implemented with procedural fairness and doctrinal consistency. It is worth noting that the Act itself incorporates several progressive provisions, including the mandatory inclusion of Muslim women in Waqf Boards-an inclusion that reflects the government’s intent to democratize and modernize religious administration.
Crucially, the Court has not questioned the need for reform, nor has it discredited the purpose of legislative oversight over religious endowments. The concerns expressed are not about the ends, but about ensuring that the means do not transgress constitutional boundaries, particularly those related to minority rights, due process, and equality.
At the same time, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has drawn the Court’s attention to the pattern of orchestrated violence, alleging it aims to create pressure against the legislative and judicial process. The Court’s restraint, even in the face of such volatility, reaffirms its commitment to decide on law-not on the noise that surrounds it.
Indeed, the Court has made observations in support of the legislative intent behind the Act. It accepted that the provision of “Waqf by user” had been misused, citing instances such as even the Delhi High Court premises being declared as waqf property. The bench also recognized the need to bar tribal lands from being donated as Waqf, and endorsed the constitutional validity of time limitations on waqf claims-measures aimed at stemming abuse without impairing legitimate religious freedom.
“In summary of yesterday’s proceedings, the Supreme Court is yet to make any concrete or critical observations regarding the Waqf Amendment Act, but it is engaging with the matter as a constitutional court should — with nuance, caution, and fidelity to the rule of law.”
Though certain sections of society and lobbying groups are attempting to spin new narratives around the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings to further their victimhood agenda, it is now the burden of the Apex Court to act as a complementary arm of both the judiciary and the Parliament — nor to decide who is more privileged than whom.
The public is keenly watching the next day’s proceedings and judgments, especially those linked to Islamic religious forces that are determined not to lose their lobbying influence. In such a context, resisting intimidation should be the hallmark of a mature constitutional democracy.
Comments