MS Shanker
In a shocking show of defiance, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has openly declared that her government will not implement the Waqf Amendment Act, 2024 — a law duly passed by both Houses of the Indian Parliament. Her remarks are not only constitutionally untenable but strike at the very heart of India’s federal and parliamentary democratic framework. The time has come for the Centre to consider whether such deliberate insubordination merits the ultimate constitutional remedy — President’s Rule.
Banerjee’s rhetoric is unmistakably incendiary. “I know you are hurt by the Waqf Amendment Act, but nothing of that sort will happen in Bengal,” she proclaimed, reassuring the Muslim population that her state would defy the new law. She went further, declaring, “We have 33 per cent Muslims here”—a blatant falsehood. In 1947, West Bengal’s Muslim population stood at around 25%, and even with slight increases over the decades, recent estimates place it closer to 27%. Yet, she inflates the figure to 33%, which was the figure before independence. Her claim that “they have been living here for centuries” also rings hollow, considering that over 10% are reportedly illegal migrants from Myanmar or Bangladesh—individuals her government allegedly helped settle, issuing Aadhaar and ration cards. West Bengal remains the only state bleeding from such appeasement. And in her own words: “I must protect them.” This isn’t just politics. It’s open defiance of the Constitution.
The Waqf Amendment Bill, 2024, was debated and passed by Parliament, the supreme legislative body under the Constitution of India. Once a law is enacted by Parliament, it becomes binding on all states — regardless of which party is in power. Article 254 of the Constitution makes it clear: in any conflict between central and state law on matters within the Concurrent List, central law will prevail. Article 365 takes it a step further — if a state government fails to comply with or give effect to directions from the Centre, it could invite President’s Rule.
Yet Banerjee seems to believe her political calculus trumps constitutional duty. This isn’t an isolated incident. Increasingly, non-BJP ruled states — whether it’s the DMK in Tamil Nadu, the National Conference in Jammu & Kashmir, or the Trinamool Congress in Bengal — are creating flashpoints by encouraging street protests, obstructing central schemes, or outright refusing to implement laws passed by Parliament. The cumulative effect is a pattern of constitutional subversion disguised as regional autonomy. This tendency is now spreading to other non-BJP states like Telangana and Karnataka, where the Congress is in power and openly opposing the Centre. Some of its leaders have even taken the matter to the Supreme Court.
This is not federalism. This is deliberate destabilisation.
In Tamil Nadu, the DMK has consistently attacked central initiatives and fomented protests on emotive issues to create a climate of tension. In Jammu and Kashmir, National Conference leaders continue to fan discontent over the abrogation of Article 370, despite it being settled by the highest constitutional court. The script is the same: create unrest, challenge the Centre’s authority, polarise voters, and when the law catches up, cry “democracy in danger”.
The Mamata government’s position on the Waqf Amendment Act is particularly alarming because it hits multiple fault lines — religion, federalism, and constitutional propriety. A Chief Minister is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution. The oath of office is not symbolic — it is a legal and moral contract with the Republic. When a sitting CM pledges to defy a parliamentary law, she is not just breaking that contract — she is challenging the very legitimacy of Indian democracy.
If such defiance is allowed to go unchecked, what stops another state from refusing to implement laws on citizenship, national security, or taxation? This is not about one law or one party. It’s about whether India remains a country governed by a common constitutional framework — or fractures into feudal fiefdoms ruled by populist warlords.
It is now incumbent upon the Modi government to act. The West Bengal Governor, as the constitutional authority in the state, must assess the gravity of the situation and, if convinced of a constitutional breakdown, submit a report under Article 356. The Centre must then weigh its options. President’s Rule is not a tool for political vendetta, but it is a constitutional safeguard against open rebellion.
The question is not whether Mamata Banerjee should be sacked for challenging the Waqf law. The real question is: can India afford to let such defiance pass without consequence? The answer will determine whether the Constitution still reigns supreme — or if it’s become just another political prop.
