Tag: Supreme Court

Nishikant Dubey vs Supreme Court: A Storm Brewing in Politics

you’re at a bustling chai stall in Delhi, overhearing a heated debate about politics. One uncle is waving his newspaper, shouting about how politicians are crossing lines, while another sips his chai, muttering about the judiciary’s role. This is the vibe in India right now, thanks to BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s explosive comments against the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. It’s like a masala movie plot—full of drama, accusations, and a clash of powers. So, what’s the deal? Let’s break it down in a way that feels like we’re chatting over some cutting chai.

The Spark: Dubey’s Controversial Remarks

Nishikant Dubey, a four-time MP from Godda, Jharkhand, isn’t new to stirring the pot. Known for his fiery speeches, he’s often the BJP’s go-to guy for taking on opponents. But this time, he aimed higher—straight at the Supreme Court. On April 19, 2025, Dubey accused the apex court of “inciting religious wars” and blamed CJI Sanjiv Khanna for “all civil wars in the country.” Ouch! He didn’t stop there. He suggested that if the Supreme Court is going to make laws, Parliament should just shut down. Imagine saying that about the country’s highest court—it’s like telling your boss they’re doing your job wrong, in front of everyone.

These remarks came after the Supreme Court raised questions about the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and set timelines for the President and Governors to clear bills, like in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Dubey felt the court was overstepping its role, acting like a “super Parliament.” His words weren’t just a critique; they were a full-on attack, sparking a political firestorm.

The Supreme Court’s Response: Calm but Firm

The Supreme Court didn’t take the bait for a public spat, but it didn’t stay silent either. On April 21, 2025, Justice B.R. Gavai, during a hearing, acknowledged the criticism, saying the court is often accused of “encroaching” on Parliament’s turf. No drama, just facts. The court also addressed a petitioner seeking contempt action against Dubey, clarifying that they don’t need permission to file such a plea but must get the Attorney General’s sanction. This measured response shows the judiciary’s restraint, even when under fire.

Advocate Anas Tanwir, representing petitioners in the Waqf case, wrote to the Attorney General, calling Dubey’s remarks “grossly scandalous” and harmful to the court’s dignity. The court’s focus remained on the law, not the noise, which is classic Supreme Court style—stay above the fray, let the process handle it.

The Political Fallout: BJP’s Tightrope Walk

Here’s where it gets spicy. The BJP, Dubey’s party, quickly distanced itself from his remarks. BJP president J.P. Nadda took to X, saying the party “completely rejects” Dubey’s statements and that they were his “personal opinions.” Smart move, but is it enough? Other BJP leaders, like Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, tried to shift the narrative, pointing out Congress’s past criticisms of the judiciary. But the Opposition wasn’t having it. Congress leaders like Digvijaya Singh demanded Dubey’s suspension, calling his remarks a “defamation” of the court.

Interestingly, not everyone in the BJP camp disagreed with Dubey. West Bengal MLA Agnimitra Paul backed him, questioning why the CJI should challenge the President’s authority. Talk about mixed signals! This shows the delicate balance the BJP is trying to strike—supporting its outspoken MP while avoiding a full-blown clash with the judiciary.

The Waqf Act Connection: Why It Matters

At the heart of this storm is the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Act aims to reform how Waqf properties (land or assets dedicated for Muslim religious or charitable purposes) are managed. Critics, including former Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi, called it a “sinister plan” to seize Muslim lands. Dubey, in response, didn’t just defend the Act—he attacked Quraishi, labeling him a “Muslim commissioner” instead of an election commissioner. Yikes, that’s personal.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the Act, particularly provisions like the “Waqf by user” clause, irked Dubey. He argued the court demands evidence for temple land disputes but not for Waqf properties, accusing it of bias. This communal angle has only fueled the controversy, with protests in places like Murshidabad, West Bengal, adding to the tension.

Why This Clash Matters: Judiciary vs Legislature

This isn’t just about Dubey’s loud mouth or the Waqf Act. It’s a bigger question: where’s the line between the judiciary and the legislature? The Supreme Court interprets laws and ensures they align with the Constitution, but some, like Dubey and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, argue it’s acting like a lawmaker. Dhankhar called the court a “super Parliament,” echoing Dubey’s sentiments.

On the flip side, the judiciary’s role is to check and balance the other arms of government. When it set timelines for bill approvals or flagged Waqf Act issues, it was doing its job—protecting constitutional values. But Dubey’s outburst highlights a growing frustration among some politicians who feel the court is meddling too much. It’s like a family feud where everyone thinks they’re right.

The Public’s Take: A Divided House

Scroll through X, and you’ll see the divide. Some users hail Dubey as a “fearless” voice calling out judicial overreach. Others slam him as a “troll MP” disrespecting the Constitution. It’s like a Twitter war with no end. The public’s reaction mirrors the larger debate: should politicians challenge the judiciary so openly, or does it weaken our democratic institutions?

My Take: A Dangerous Precedent?

Here’s my two cents: Dubey’s remarks cross a line. Critiquing the judiciary is fine—debate keeps democracy alive. But accusing the CJI of starting “civil wars” or throwing communal slurs at critics like Quraishi? That’s not critique; it’s reckless. It risks eroding trust in institutions that hold India together. The BJP’s quick disavowal shows they know this, but their silence on Dubey’s Quraishi comments raises questions about their sincerity.

The Supreme Court, by staying calm, has shown why it’s the grown-up in the room. But this clash is a wake-up call. We need clearer boundaries between the judiciary, legislature, and executive, or these storms will keep brewing. As citizens, we should demand respectful dialogue, not headline-grabbing rants.

If you found this blog interesting, you might enjoy this one too: Waqf Act Controversy: What’s Happening in Murshidabad?

April 21, 2025
What’s Going On Between the Supreme Court and the Waqf Act?
If you’ve been catching bits of news lately or just overheard people chatting near a pan shop, chances are you’ve heard folks talking about this new Waqf Amendment Act of 2025. It’s not some random law—this one’s got communities across the country worried, debating, and honestly, pretty fired up.

Now, I’m not a legal expert or anything, but growing up in a city like Kanpur, I’ve seen how Waqf lands are part of everyday life. That old mosque near the market, the graveyard we pass on the way to school, even the madarsa with the dusty courtyard—these aren’t just buildings. They’re part of people’s lives. So when Parliament passed a new law in April changing how these properties are managed, it shook things up.

The Supreme Court stepped in and held back-to-back hearings on April 16 and 17. And suddenly, this whole thing feels much bigger than just rules and amendments.

So, Why Did the Supreme Court Step In?

Well, the new Waqf Act brought some bold changes. It says that even non-Muslims can now be part of the Waqf Boards. Also, the old “Waqf by user” idea—where a place is treated as Waqf just because it’s been used that way for decades—is now out. On top of that, District Collectors have been given the power to decide disputes about whether a piece of land is Waqf or not.

If it sounds technical, trust me, the real impact is much deeper. We’re talking about over 8.7 lakh Waqf properties, together worth more than ₹1.2 lakh crore. That’s not small change. The Act sparked protests, trending hashtags like #RejectWaqfBill, and over 100 people went straight to the Supreme Court asking for help. Big names like Asaduddin Owaisi and Mohammad Jawed called it unfair to the Muslim community, while the government insists it’s all about stopping corruption and mismanagement.

So, the Supreme Court—led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna—stepped in like a neutral umpire in a very heated match.

What Actually Happened in the Hearings?

The Court didn’t cancel the Act, at least not yet. But they did look at it closely and asked some very pointed questions.

Here’s what went down:
- The judges considered freezing a few parts of the Act for now, like the bit about non-Muslims joining the Waqf Boards. But the government said, “Wait, let’s talk it through first.” So, the Court gave them a week to reply. Petitioners get five days after that to respond.
- The next hearing is scheduled for May 5, and till then, the government has promised not to take any bold steps—like changing the Waqf Board structure or shifting property rights.
- The Chief Justice also expressed concern about the violence that broke out in places like Murshidabad. He called it “disturbing,” and told everyone to calm down while the Court works through things.
So for now, it’s like pressing the pause button. Not stop, just wait and watch.

The Big Questions Nobody’s Ignoring Anymore

Let me break down the main questions the judges asked—not in legal terms, but like we’re talking over an evening walk:

1. What Happens to Old Waqf Places Without Documents?

There are places—like small mosques in old parts of town—that have been Waqf for ages. But they don’t have paperwork. Back in the 1700s or 1800s, who even had sale deeds? The Court asked, “If we remove the ‘Waqf by user’ idea, will these places suddenly stop being Waqf?” That could mean a lot of community spaces might lose their status overnight.

2. Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards – Fair or Not?

The Court also raised eyebrows at the idea of non-Muslims being added to Waqf Boards. The Chief Justice asked a simple but sharp question—would anyone be okay with Muslims being added to boards managing Hindu temples? That hit a nerve. In many places, that idea alone could cause unrest. The government said non-Muslims would handle admin roles only, not religious matters—but the judges weren’t totally convinced.

3. Can District Collectors Be Trusted Here?

The Act says that District Collectors will decide if a land is Waqf or not. But the judges wondered—what if the Collector is under pressure from the government? What if there’s bias? Once a Collector gives a verdict, the land stops being Waqf. Is that fair? Can people even challenge it in court? All these questions came up.

4. What About Ancient Waqfs Without Deeds?

Again, the Court circled back to the paperwork issue. Many old dargahs and mosques were built long before British laws came in. There was no official deed system. The judges asked—are we now saying those places don’t count just because they don’t have a file with a stamp?

5. And the Violence?

Lastly, the Court didn’t stay quiet about the protests turning violent. In Murshidabad, things got out of hand. The Chief Justice firmly said such violence is unacceptable, especially while the matter is being heard. Everyone needs to cool down.

Why All This Matters

This isn’t just courtroom drama. It affects real people. I remember playing cricket outside a mosque near my school—today, that mosque could be at risk of losing its Waqf status because of paperwork. These places aren’t just walls and domes. They carry memories, traditions, and trust.

The Court’s questions show they’re trying to balance both sides. They’re asking—are we being fair to the past, while also making rules for the future?

My Take on It

Personally, I think it’s a good thing that the Supreme Court stepped in. In places like Kanpur, I’ve seen Waqf properties slowly get taken over by shops or builders. Some rules need fixing, sure. Transparency is important. But we can’t just brush off centuries of history.

Maybe the answer lies somewhere in between. Keep the positive steps, like better records and maybe even allowing women to join boards. But don’t scrap traditions that held things together for years. Also, if we say one religious body must include outsiders, then every religious trust should follow the same rule. No picking and choosing.

Let’s see what happens on May 5. But at least now, the matter is being questioned—and that’s always better than silent acceptance.

Releated to this articale:
Enjoyed this read? Continue the journey with: Waqf Bill 2025: What’s Really Going On? Why So Much Noise?
If this resonated with you, here’s something similar you might like: Disturbed With Violence During Protests Against Waqf Amendment Act : Supreme Court
April 17, 2025
Hyderabad’s Trees vs Bulldozers: Kancha Gachibowli

These days, Hyderabad is often in the headlines for its IT boom and tall buildings. But behind the shine, there’s a quieter battle going on—one that’s about saving a patch of forest land, not building on it. In Kancha Gachibowli, near the University of Hyderabad, hundreds of acres of greenery have suddenly come under threat. And what followed? Protests, police action, and even a strong word from the Supreme Court.

Let’s try to understand what’s happening—because this isn’t just about Hyderabad. It’s about how we treat nature while chasing development.

Supreme Court to the Rescue (for Now)

On April 3, 2025, something rare happened. The Supreme Court stepped in on its own, without anyone filing a case, and asked the Telangana government to stop all tree-cutting in the Kancha Gachibowli forest area. The court asked the kind of questions most of us have been wondering: “Why the hurry to clear land?” and “Did you even take permission before chopping trees?”

Justice B.R. Gavai didn’t hold back. He reminded the officials that no matter how big someone’s position is, the law is still bigger. He even told the Chief Secretary to be ready for personal consequences if the order wasn’t followed. That kind of warning? It doesn’t come often.

And it worked, at least for now. Chainsaws went quiet. The High Court registrar was sent to inspect the area. The trees—and the animals living there—got a temporary sigh of relief.

The Students Who Refused to Stay Silent

If anyone deserves real credit here, it’s the students of the University of Hyderabad. From April 1, they stood outside with placards. Some went on hunger strikes. They faced lathis, police barricades, and even injuries—but they didn’t stop.

One student said something simple yet powerful: “We’re not just fighting for trees. We’re fighting for what Hyderabad will lose if we don’t act now.” And honestly, that’s the heart of the matter.

Their movement picked up fast. Social media buzzed. Celebrities and environmental groups joined in. And when the court ruling came on April 4, students called it a “people’s win.” They even held a victory march. But they know this is not the end—it’s just one battle in a much longer fight.

The Government’s Sudden U-Turn

After the court’s intervention, Telangana’s government suddenly shifted tone. That same night, they formed a committee of ministers to “talk” to the university and civil society. They also told police not to use force against students anymore.

Deputy CM Vikramarka and IT Minister Sridhar Babu gave a joint statement: “We believe in the Supreme Court. Justice will be done.”

Sounds nice, but here’s the catch: the land in question is worth around ₹10,000 crore. It was given to the state in 2024 after a long court case. The plan? IT parks, real estate, better roads—the usual promises.

So, is this new committee serious about listening to the public? Or is it just a delay tactic while the heat cools down? That’ll depend on what happens during the next court hearing on April 16.

This Isn’t Just a Hyderabad Problem

This entire episode reminds us of a larger issue. Why do we treat nature like it’s in the way of progress?

Whether it’s Mumbai’s Aarey forest or Delhi’s ever-shrinking green spaces—every city is losing its lungs. Kancha Gachibowli is one of the last green buffers in Hyderabad. It’s not just about birds or deer—it’s about cleaner air, groundwater, and peace in a fast-growing city.

The worst part? All this happened with no environmental impact study, no proper approvals. Just fast-paced destruction in the name of growth.

Development is important. But cutting 100 acres of forest in just a few days, without a clear plan—that’s not smart development. That’s poor planning wrapped in shiny words.

What Hyderabad Can Still Do

If it were up to me, here’s what I’d suggest: stop everything and turn Kancha Gachibowli into a protected urban forest.

Use it for environmental research. Let students run awareness programs. Build eco-tourism paths—not office towers. Show that a city can grow smart, without killing its roots.

Will the government listen? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing is clear: people are watching now. And the students have shown us that if you care enough, you can push back.

April 6, 2025