The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf Act deserves acknowledgment, not blind celebration. In their considered wisdom, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih stopped short of staying the entire Act, choosing instead to put on hold certain controversial provisions. This cautious middle path, while seemingly balanced, raises larger questions about the state of legislative clarity and judicial restraint in India. The Court’s decision to suspend the clause that permitted only practising Muslims of the last five years to create a waqf was, perhaps, inevitable. That provision was an exclusionary barrier that conflicted with constitutional principles. Similarly, the Court stayed the clause empowering a government-designated officer to unilaterally decide whether waqf property had encroached on government land. Both these suspensions point to a recurring problem: legislative drafts often overlook wider consultation and end up vulnerable to judicial pruning. One must then ask: are our lawmakers failing to anticipate constitutional challenges? Parliament, as the supreme law-making body, ought to ensure that every statute reflects fairness, inclusivity, and public interest. Instead, hurried legislations and politically motivated amendments have become the norm. It would be simplistic to pin this only on the ruling side; the Opposition too has turned itself into a caricature, opposing for the sake of opposing, guided less by principle and more by the compulsions of vote-bank politics. This deterioration of legislative seriousness places an unfair burden on the judiciary, which is then forced to strike balances that Parliament itself should have ensured. The interim order also directed that the Chief Executive Officer of a Waqf Board should preferably be a Muslim but stopped short of barring the appointment of non-Muslims. Additionally, it capped non-Muslim representation on waqf boards at three. These compromises reflect an attempt at equilibrium, but they also reveal the complexity of reconciling religious institutions with constitutional secularism.
Yet, what complicates the matter further is the environment in which the Indian judiciary operates. Domestically, the courts are subjected to relentless attacks from political opponents who question every verdict that does not align with their narrative. Internationally, there is the growing pressure of a Western gaze—frequently misinformed, occasionally condescending. A recent instance stands out: a U.S.-based journalist publicly grilled a former Chief Justice of India over “controversial” verdicts, citing a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi and alleged rulings against minorities. Clips of that exchange went viral, serving more as ammunition for political propaganda than as informed legal critique. That a retired CJI felt compelled to respond to such questioning on foreign soil is itself troubling. India’s judiciary, with all its flaws, does not owe explanations to Western journalists or discredited foreign publications. Yet, these narratives gain traction because sections of India’s own political class are quick to echo them. For the Congress and its allies, diminishing the credibility of institutions seems the only path left in their long, desperate attempt to reclaim relevance in the face of Narendra Modi’s political dominance. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s careful trimming of the Waqf Act will inevitably be politicised. The Opposition may seek to portray it as a victory for minority rights, while the ruling establishment may treat it as a vindication of constitutional scrutiny. The truth, however, lies in between. This order is neither a blanket endorsement of the Waqf Act nor a wholesale rejection—it is a reminder that judicial interventions cannot substitute for rigorous lawmaking. The larger lesson is clear. Legislators must craft laws that are constitutionally robust, transparent, and beyond suspicion of appeasement. Courts, for their part, must continue to walk the fine line between correction and overreach. And as for those who seek to import external narratives into India’s judicial debates, they would do well to recognise that India’s democracy, with all its contestations, does not require certification from abroad. The Supreme Court has spoken, cautiously yet firmly. The ball is now in the government’s court—whether it treats this judgment as an opportunity to strengthen the legislative process or as just another battle in the political tug-of-war remains to be seen.
