SC Judgment on Waqf Act is a Case of Match Fixing

You are Here: Tweet, Like, Share, Comment, Subscribe…be the Voice of Free Press!

By Syed Ali Mujtaba, Edited By Adam Rizvi, The India Observer, TIO: The talk in the town is that the BJP has once again reined in the Supreme Court to defend its Waqf Act. It is yet another case of match fixing where the executive and the judiciary were hand in glove, to pulverize the beleaguered Muslims, who are prostrating before ‘My Lord’, the highest court of appeal for justice.   

When the Waqf Bill was put to a vote in the Parliament, 288 votes (BJP members) voted in favor, and 232 voted against the bill. The brazen display of the game of numbers and its interplay with the democratic process is the new normal in India, established by the BJP.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: The BJP has to “Manage” the Supreme Court to defend the Waqf Act

Managing the Supreme Court is one of the significant arts of statecraft of the BJP. The way the party in power manages the Election Commission has now come out into the open.  And now, in the Waqf judgment, how the ruling government has managed the judiciary is the talk of the town.

The credibility of the Judiciary has fallen in India

The Indian judicial system has started witnessing a decline since the BJP government came to power in 2014. The highest court meant to preserve the integrity of the Constitution was found to be playing a partisan role. The decline in the judiciary started in 2014 with the move to replace the collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The BJP government activated NJAC by passing the Bill in Parliament in 2014. It empowered Parliament to enact a law regarding the composition, function, and procedure of the NJAC. The NJAC arguably was a ploy to bring the judiciary within the ambit of the Parliament.

These developments necessitated four Supreme Court judges to bring the matters related to judicial administration and management into the public domain on January 18, 2018. The judges openly pronounced that ‘Democracy was in danger in India.’

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Waqf Amendment Bill- Attempt to Snuff the Soul of Indian Muslims

The role of the judiciary to protect the constitution and to rein in the wavering government was found missing in the many judgments of the Supreme Court. Many judgments; the judiciary was turning away from its constitutional duties and favored the government’s agenda at the expense of constitutional probity.

There are numerous cases where the partiality of the Supreme Court was found to be explicit. The Ram Janambhoomi/Babri Masjid judgment that was decided in favor of the Hindu litigants is a case in point.

The Ayodhya judgment by the Apex Court is often cited as a test case where the judiciary ruled in favor of the Hindu litigants even without any evidence of its right and title over the disputed structure. This judgment was delivered to placate the ruling government.

 The Modi government rewarded CJI Ranjan Gogoi for delivering a favorable judgment in the Babari masjid case with a Rajya Sabha seat barely four months after his retirement. It was the same Ranjan Gogoi, who was part of the four-member Supreme Court judges who clamored for ‘democracy in danger.’ This is a classic example of the rot that has set in the Indian judicial system since 2014.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Waqf Amendment bill- A Hidden Agenda to further ‘Pulverize’ Indian Muslims

There are other cases where the Supreme Court sided with the government. For instance, it endorsed the parliamentary vote on the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special powers to the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Apex Court did not go into the merits of the constitutional provision that necessitated the insertion of Article 370 into the Constitution. It simply endorsed the government agenda to placate the Hindu votes in the rest of India and to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution.

The other instances include the Supreme Court giving a clean chit to the Modi government in the allegations of corruption related to the purchase of Rafale fighter jets, as well as in the PM CARE Fund and the PM Relief Fund.

Commenting on the decline of the judiciary at the highest level, noted lawyer and senior advocate, Rajeev Dhavan, in an interview, alleged that some of the Supreme Court’s judgments have paved the way for the ‘Hindu-isation’ of India.

Dahvan said that the apex court’s judgments going back to the sixties have given a nod to the idea that India was an “innately Hindu” state, and that is now fructifying into an affirmation of “muscular nationalism.”

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Waqf Bill attack on India’s constitutional fabric: Pramod Tiwari, MP

The noted lawyer enlisted four important judgments, saying they contributed to the ‘Hindu-isation’ of India.  He said the first judgment was in 1966, called Yagnapur Das Ji, where Justice (Pralhad Balacharya) Gajendragadkar indicated that everybody is a Hindu. Dahvan said this was the first judgment of expansive Hindu-isation.

The second judgment, in 1995-1996, was argued by Ram Jethmalani, when the Supreme Court stated that ‘Hindutva’ is a way of life. Dhavan said, This, in practical terms, means a Hindu can go on about the greatness of Hinduism as long as he does not tell the Christians and Muslims that their religion is inferior.

The third is the 1996 judgment on election appeal – Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo versus Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, which was reversed by the Supreme Court in Abhiram Singh versus CD Commachen in 2017. Here, while the majority (4-3) seized this opportunity to clarify that no appeals to religion are permissible in an election, one member wrote a dissent note that, if properly interpreted, it meant that you can always appeal to your own religion.

The fourth judgment was the Babri Masjid case.  Dhavan, who pleaded the case for Muslim litigants, felt that the case was lost on account of technicalities but described the judgment as “the oddest” in the history of the Supreme Court.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Waqf Act has Put Indian Secularism to the test       

Prashant Bhusan, the noted lawyer and social activist, has said that the independence of the judiciary has collapsed in India. He added that most of the Supreme Court’s judgments are influenced by extraneous factors like nepotism, political affiliations, or other such reasons.

Advocate Bhusan further pointed out that the government’s interference in the appointments of judges or stalling the appointments of unfavorable judges is the main reason for the decline of the judiciary. However, the most important reason is the willingness of the judges to kowtow to the government, which compromises the independence of the judiciary. The government is also using its investigative agencies to target a section of the judiciary that makes them vulnerable.

Prashant Bhushan says, the other reason for the decline of the judiciary is the government’s ability to control the Chief Justices and to influence the judgment of some of the important cases. Since CJI controls the entire judiciary, all politically sensitive cases are sent to preferred benches to get a favorable judgment for the government. This was precisely the reason why the four senior judges held the press conference on January 18, 2018.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Mr. Mohammad! Are you a Muslim, as deduced from the Waqf Act?  

Conclusion: The decline of the independence of the judiciary started with the hyper-nationalism of the Modi government that sucked the judges into its vortex, and judges lost all credibility and self-esteem. The pressure from the government is the main reason for the fall of the judiciary.

It’s seen that whenever the government is weak or in a coalition, the judiciary becomes proactive and powerful and dominates the public space, but when the government is strong and is backed up by the Parliamentary majority, the Courts buckle under the pressure from the executive.

Someone has rightly said, ‘Indians have lost faith in the judiciary because they are ruled by power and not by law. Cases can be withdrawn when criminals acquire power, so acquiring power seems to be the best defence against the legal system in the country.

The Supreme Court judgment on the Waqf Act has made it amply clear that ‘India is ruled by power and not by the rule of law.’ The judgment on the Waqf Act 2025 has made it clear that the judiciary is running errands for the ruling government that commands all the power.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Mr. Mohammad! Are you a Muslim, as deduced from the Waqf Act?  

Someone has rightly quipped, earlier, if the government erred, people went to the judiciary for justice; now, when the judiciary has surrounded the executive, people didn’t know where to go?

Also Read more from this Author: Outrage in Tamil Nadu, the Governor asks students to chant ‘Jai Sri Ram’

Curated by Humra Kidwai

Articles written by contributors have different viewpoints. The views expressed in the articles are the author’s own and not necessarily supported by TIO, The India Observer its affiliates, staff, or the management. Our Articles can be reproduced, with the following conditions, (1) No alteration to the content, (2) Visible, and full credit is given to the Author & Editor. (3) Citing, The India Observer, TIO. In the case of online or electronic media, a link to the original article must be given. Rules are strictly enforced. Any questions, email the Editor at: Mediaiss@gmail.com Or TheIndiaObserver@gmail.com