In a democracy, wisdom often lies in knowing when not to act. That appears to have dawned—albeit late—on the outgoing Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and his Constitution Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan. In what many see as a prudent retreat, the Bench has decided not to pass interim orders or rush judgment on a slew of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, instead deferring the matter to be heard by the incoming CJI B.R. Gavai. This decision—whether born out of legal humility or public pressure—was a much-needed corrective. For far too long, India’s judiciary has flirted with overreach, at times bordering on constitutional arrogance. Article 245 of the Constitution clearly vests the power to make laws in Parliament. Article 246 outlines the separation of powers between the Union and States. Nowhere does the Constitution empower the judiciary to function as a super-legislature. Judicial review, yes. Judicial veto, no. Let’s be clear: the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, was passed through the due democratic process. The Bill received presidential assent on April 5. It cleared the Lok Sabha with a majority of 288 votes against 232, and the Rajya Sabha by 128 to 95. The Centre, through Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, submitted a 1332-page preliminary counter-affidavit, underscoring not only the legality but also the legislative will behind the enactment.
Yet the initial posture of the CJI-led bench—threatening interim orders—reeked of judicial adventurism. This is not an isolated episode. The outgoing CJI has presided over several controversial decisions that have dented institutional credibility. Take the Delhi High Court “currency burning” scandal, where video evidence showed massive bundles of cash going up in flames. Instead of ordering an FIR or directing the police to probe, Justice Khanna chose to form a three-member internal committee. The accused judge was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, prompting an unprecedented revolt by the Bar Council of Allahabad. Never before in post-independence India has the judiciary been so publicly rebuked by its own. Worse still was the ruling by a two-judge bench headed by CJI Khanna which shockingly stated that if the Governor or President withholds assent to a Bill within four weeks, it may still be deemed to have passed. This interpretation is nothing short of a constitutional calamity. It flies in the face of Articles 200 and 201, which mandate that a Bill does not become law unless it receives formal assent. It also undermines the federal architecture where Governors and the President act as constitutional checks, not ceremonial rubber stamps.
In this context, Khanna’s decision to step back from delivering a rushed interim order in the Waqf case is welcome, albeit overdue. His own words in court were revealing: “We have not very deeply gone into the counter-affidavit… this matter will have to be heard on a reasonably early date, and this will not be before me.” Solicitor-General Mehta rightly responded, “We would have loved to pursue your lordship… but we cannot embarrass you because there is no time.” That gentle sarcasm wasn’t lost on the nation. Make no mistake—the Waqf Amendment Act touches on deeply contentious issues involving public land, religious privilege, and constitutional equality. Several parties, including AIMIM, DMK, Left outfits, and Muslim organizations have challenged the law, claiming it infringes on minority rights. But it is precisely because the law deals with such sensitive terrain that only a full, fair, and post-retirement-free Bench should hear it. This episode must serve as a wake-up call for the judiciary. Article 50 of the Constitution calls for the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. That wall has become dangerously porous. Judicial activism—once hailed as a tool for social justice—has morphed into legislative encroachment. It is time for the judiciary to restore public confidence not through sermons on morality but by staying within its constitutional bounds. Let the elected Legislature legislate. Let the Executive execute. Let the Judiciary adjudicate, not dictate. The nation cannot afford another season of institutional conflict. Justice Khanna’s last-minute restraint may have saved the judiciary from further disgrace. Now, it’s up to his successor, Justice Gavai, to restore balance—and remind the courts of the old but golden maxim: “The Bench is not a ballot box.” Would you like this turned into a print-ready editorial format with subheadings and bolded emphasis?
