THE newly enacted Waqf Act has started a debate on the supremacy of Parliament and the Supreme Court. It follows BJP parliamentarians attacking the apex court after a bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna issued interim orders staying some crucial provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act.
There are 73 petitions by different political parties, Muslim organisations and individual lawmakers challenging the Waqf Act and questioning its constitutionality.
In a Hindi post on the X platform on Saturday, BJP MP from Jharkhand’s Godda constituency, Nishikant Dubey, has questioned the locus standi of the Supreme Court. He wrote, “Parliament should be closed down if the Supreme Court has to make the laws” (Kanoon yadi Supreme Court hi banayega to Sansad Bhavan bund kar dena chahiye).
He added, “The Supreme Court is breaching its boundaries. It is going beyond its limits. If one has to go to the Supreme Court for everything, then parliament and state assemblies should be shut down.”
Dubey also targeted the Chief Justice of India. “Sanjiv Khanna is responsible for all the civil wars happening in this country,” he said.
The four-time MP first made the terse post in Hindi on X and later, in remarks to PTI, accused the court of arrogating to itself parliament’s legislative powers by striking down laws passed by the legislature and even giving directions to the President who, Dubey noted, is the appointing authority of Supreme Court judges.
Another party MP, Dinesh Sharma, also criticised the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Tamil Nadu governor vs state government case and said no one can challenge the president as the president is supreme. Sharma is a Rajya Sabha member.
Although BJP president JP Nadda rejected the comments and said the party always had a high regard for the Supreme Court and judiciary. Nadda said they were personal statements and the BJP neither agrees nor supports such statements. But the MPs have let the cat out of the bag. The statements of the MPs came soon after similar sentiments were aired by Vice President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar. He voiced strong disapproval of the Supreme Court’s judgment after it set a timeline for the President to decide on the bills sent to the Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Speaking to the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns at the Vice-President’s Enclave, Dhankhar sharply criticised the court, saying, “The Supreme Court cannot fire a ‘nuclear missile’ at the democratic forces.”
The BJP leaders’ onslaught on the Supreme Court has come in for sharp criticism from opposition MPs who claim that the ruling party is trying to weaken the judiciary through these “obnoxious” remarks.
“What the Supreme Court is saying is the law made by the government should not go against the basic structure of the constitution, and if that is the case, the court will not accept it,” said Congress MP Imran Masood
AAP spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar said, “Whenever judges give judgments in favour of the BJP, they are made members of the Rajya Sabha, and now, when the CJI has instructed that the law should be followed, the BJP has used all its resources to defame him and attack the Supreme Court.”
The controversy highlights the complex relationship between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. As the world’s largest democracy, India’s institutions are designed to be independent and checks and balances are built in. However, the current debate raises questions about where to draw the line between legitimate criticism and undue pressure on the judiciary.
The Supreme Court plays a vital role in upholding the Constitution and protecting citizens’ rights. Any perceived attempt to compromise its independence could have far-reaching implications for the country’s democratic framework and the rule of law.
————–
Dr Syed Ali Mujtaba is based in Chennai. Views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them. He can be contacted at syedalimujtaba2007@gmail.com
