India reports less than 50K new corona cases for 15 straight days

In a powerful courtroom exchange, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday sharply questioned the Centre over controversial changes in the Waqf Amendment Act, especially the provision that allows non-Muslims to be part of the Central Waqf Council.

The hearing was conducted by a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and included Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. The court is currently hearing 73 petitions filed against the amended law, which has stirred protests in several parts of the country.

Key Questions Raised by the Court

1. Should the Petitions Be Shifted to High Courts?

Chief Justice Khanna opened the hearing by asking:

•    Should these petitions be heard by a High Court?

•    What specific constitutional questions are the petitioners raising?

Petitioners Argue Violation of Religious Freedom

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that:

•    The new law violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which protects the right to manage religious affairs.

•    Giving the Collector judicial authority under the law is unconstitutional, since the Collector represents the government.

What Is 'Waqf by User' — And Why It's Controversial

•    Sibal explained that ‘Waqf by user’ refers to properties that have long been used for religious or charitable purposes and are thus treated as Waqf, even if no written deed exists.

•    The new law removes this recognition if the property is government land or under dispute — which he said undermines centuries of Islamic tradition.

•    “If a waqf was created 3,000 years ago, they’ll ask for the deed,” Sibal remarked.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi added that nearly half of India’s 8 lakh Waqf properties (approx. 4 lakh) are based on this concept.

The Chief Justice acknowledged the complexity, noting:

“We are told the Delhi High Court is built on Waqf land. There is misuse, yes—but there are genuine Waqfs too.”

Major Flashpoint: Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Council

“Will Muslims Be on Hindu Boards? Say It Openly” — Chief Justice Asks Centre

One of the strongest moments in the hearing came when the court questioned the Centre’s move to allow non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council.

The Chief Justice asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta:

“Are you saying you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly.”

This pointed question was aimed at highlighting perceived inconsistencies in how religious communities are treated in administrative roles concerning religious institutions.

 Centre Defends the Law

•    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the law was thoroughly debated and passed in both Houses of Parliament after review by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.

•    However, the bench asked:

“If a ‘Waqf by user’ was validated earlier by a court, does the new law now void that?”

The court observed that ancient religious structures often have no documentation:

“You cannot undo something that has stood for centuries.”

Petitioners Request Partial Stay

•    The petitioners clarified they are not seeking to block the entire Act, only some controversial provisions.

Concern Over Rising Tensions

The Chief Justice also expressed alarm over violence and tensions triggered by the law.
“It is very disturbing,” he said.

When Mehta said “they think they can pressurize the system,” Sibal responded, “We don’t know who is pressuring whom.”

What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will continue the hearing tomorrow. The court has emphasized that while there are cases of misuse, many Waqfs are genuine, and religious freedoms must be protected under the Constitution.

New Delhi: The Jammu and Kashmir Police on Thursday released sketches of three individuals suspected to be involved in the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, in which 26 civilians were killed. The police have identified two of the suspects as Pakistani nationals and have announced a reward of Rs 20 lakh for credible information leading to their arrest.

According to the notices made public by the Anantnag police, the suspects are: Hashim Musa alias Suleman, a citizen of Pakistan, Ali Bhai alias Talha Bhai, also a citizen of Pakistan and Abdul Hussain Thokar, a resident of Anantnag district in Jammu and Kashmir. All three are believed to be members of the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba.

The attack, which took place in Baisaran near Pahalgam on Tuesday, claimed the lives of 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen. It is one of the deadliest assaults on civilians in the region in recent years.

In response to the attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivered a strongly worded statement today during a public address in Bihar. In his first remarks since the incident, PM Modi said, "India will identify, track and punish every terrorist and their backers. We will pursue them to the ends of the earth. India's resolve will not falter. Terrorism will not go unpunished."

The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Modi, held an emergency meeting yesterday and announced a set of five retaliatory measures against Pakistan.

Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, briefing the media yesterday evening, announced that both Indian and Pakistani high commissions will reduce their staff strength from 55 to 30, effective from 1 May. Military, naval and air advisors in the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi have been declared persona non grata and must leave within a week. India will similarly withdraw its advisors from Islamabad.

Pakistani nationals will no longer be permitted to travel to India under the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme. All existing visas under this scheme are cancelled, and current holders must leave India within 48 hours. The only land border crossing between India and Pakistan is now shut. Pakistani citizens who crossed into India via Attari with valid permissions must return before 1 May.

India has also put the 1960 agreement in abeyance until Pakistan ceases support for terrorism. 

Earlier today, a huge protest erupted outside the Pakistan High Commission in the national capital amid heightened tensions between Delhi and Islamabad over the recent terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, which resulted in the deaths of 26 people. 

Visuals from outside the Pakistan High Commission, located in Chanakyapuri, Delhi's diplomatic enclave, show a large crowd gathered outside the building, with police forces trying to pacify it.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.