Latest news with #HinduCodeBill
Hindustan Times
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Waqf law case: Centre invokes Hindu Code argument in Supreme Court
The Centre on Wednesday drew a parallel between the Hindu Code Bill and the Waqf Act in an argument for the latter's constitutionality in a Supreme Court hearing. Responding to the submissions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the Waqf law does not contradict Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. "When the Hindu Code Bill came in 1956, the personal law rights of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains were taken away. No one said then why only Muslims were left and why others were not?' he told the apex court, NDTV reported. Mehta also argued in front of the bench composed of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih that nobody can claim a right over government land, and that the government is legally empowered to reclaim properties that are declared waqf by using the waqf by user principle. 'Nobody has the right over government land. There is a Supreme Court judgment which says the government can save the property if it belongs to the government and has been declared as waqf,' PTI quoted Mehta as saying. Waqf by user refers to a concept where a property is recognised as waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes, even without formal documentation. The bench sought a response from the Centre on the petitioners' pleas that an officer above the rank of the district collector can decide the claim over waqf properties because they are of the government. 'This is not just misleading but a false argument,' the law officer said. The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, which received presidential assent on April 5 after being passed by both the Houses of Parliament earlier, makes sweeping changes to the governance and recognition of Islamic charitable endowments, or waqfs. The Centre has defended the amendments as necessary to curb corruption, enhance transparency and ensure better regulatory oversight. But several political parties, religious organisations and civil society groups have mounted a strong push back, calling the law a direct infringement on religious autonomy and an unconstitutional imposition on the Muslim community. The petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenge the law on multiple grounds, alleging that it undermines the fundamental rights of Muslims and erodes age-old waqf traditions. Petitioners have particularly targeted provisions such as the removal of 'waqf by user' — a principle that historically allowed recognition of religious endowments created through usage or oral tradition — and the invalidation of oral waqfs unless backed by formal deeds. These changes, critics say, jeopardise the status of mosques, graveyards and dargahs that have existed for centuries without written documentation.
Hindustan Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Experts weigh in on President's move
The Supreme Court's April 8 judgment directing the President and Governors to act within a time-bound framework on bills passed by state legislatures has sparked an extraordinary constitutional moment. In a rare invocation of Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Court's advisory opinion on whether it is constitutionally permissible for the judiciary to prescribe such timelines? The reference, made following advice of the council of ministers, questions whether the President's discretion under Article 201 is justiciable in the absence of explicit constitutional timelines. The development has led to a flurry of reactions from constitutional experts, many of whom view the move as legally fraught and politically charged. Justice PN Prakash, former judge of the Madras High Court, said, 'judgments exist which make it clear that a presidential reference cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a judgment already delivered.' He added that many of the questions raised in the reference, including the maintainability of timelines and the propriety of a two-judge bench deciding such a significant matter, had already been argued before the Supreme Court. 'This is not the President acting suo motu. She acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers,' he noted, underlining the political significance of the move. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan observed that while presidential references are not uncommon, the context of this one is unprecedented. 'Most earlier references, like on judicial appointments or the Hindu Code Bill, arose in a constitutional vacuum, not in reaction to an active judgment. Here, you are asking the very institution that passed the order to opine on its correctness, albeit indirectly,' he said. He also flagged concerns about the reference's timing, noting that it was sent on the same day that the new Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai was sworn in. 'The timing was terrible.' While the Supreme Court is not bound to answer every reference, as Article 143(1) uses the word 'may', the implications of this advisory opinion could be profound. Alok Prasanna Kumar, lawyer and co-founder, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said, 'We've been here before,' referring to the 2011 Presidential Reference on the 2G spectrum case, when the government sought a clarification without contesting the judgment itself. However, Kumar stressed that this time, the stakes are higher. 'The court didn't just issue guidelines for the Governor (in its April 8 order). It went a step further and said a mandamus could be issued. That's a new constitutional frontier.'It also extended the same to the President. The April 8 ruling, in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, came after an unprecedented standoff between the state government and Governor RN Ravi, who delayed assent to 12 bills, triggering a constitutional crisis. The Court, invoking Article 142, declared that the bills had become law and directed the Governor to act within a specific timeframe. It also set timelines for Governors and the President to deal with state bills. While many welcomed the Court's effort to check gubernatorial overreach, the directive to the President raised eyebrows. 'Can the Court issue a writ of mandamus to the President, who is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?' Kumar asked. While the Court may only be directing the President to act, not prescribing how to act, this creates a novel constitutional arrangement. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar said the reference was wholly unwarranted. 'Instead, they could have taken it in their stride and said okay, the Governor will give an assent in say three months or six months. Instead, they are treating it like an attack on the authority of the Governor of the President.' The reference also has implications for the broader structure of Indian federalism. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra framed the issue in terms of the citizen's right to good governance. 'This is not just a tussle between institutions,' he argued. 'It's about whether a Governor or the President can paralyse governance by sitting indefinitely on legislation. That has real consequences for the rights of citizens, who elect governments to legislate and govern.' Luthra's concerns echo a growing sentiment that the federal balance is under strain. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar had earlier criticised the judiciary for acting like a 'super Parliament' and labelled Article 142, a provision that allows the Court to do 'complete justice,' as a 'nuclear missile' against democratic forces. To be sure, none of this would have happened had Governors stuck to the spirit of the Constitution while dealing with state bills. Justice Madan Lokur, former Supreme Court judge, offered a more tempered view on the reference. 'Legally, the President has every right to seek a reference if there is a need for clarity,' he said. But even he acknowledged the potential constitutional confusion that may arise if a five-judge bench offers an advisory opinion that contradicts the April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench. In the end, this moment marks more than a legal contest, experts said. It is a reflection of deepening tensions between India's constitutional institutions. The judiciary, facing repeated instances of executive delay and intransigence, has stepped in forcefully. But in doing so, it may have opened the door to a new round of constitutional litigation over roles, powers, and the very architecture of Indian federalism.
New Indian Express
02-05-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
RSS, Jan Sangh opposed quota since their inception: Mallikarjun Kharge
HUBBALLI: While hitting out at the BJP for its remarks that the country's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was against caste-based reservation, All-India Congress Committee (AICC) president Mallikarjun Kharge said that the RSS and Jan Sangh have opposed reservation and social justice since their inception. 'If we are against caste census, why did we write to the Centre (seeking a caste census) two years ago? BJP is creating confusion among people by pretending that only they care about people's welfare. But it is bogus. They (BJP) are doing it for politics,' he said. Kharge said that the Centre had not agreed to a caste census when he had written to PM Narendra Modi on April 16, 2023, asking for a caste census along with the national census. 'Now the Union Government has taken the decision to carry out a caste census. This is a good idea which we fully support,' Kharge said. 'Ambedkar brought the Hindu Code Bill, but everyone made a fuss about it then... Nehru had supported it. We work with ideology, but the BJP is basically against the idea of reservation. They (Modi government) should do the census along with the social, economic, and educational status of the communities,' Kharge said.
Time of India
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Congress destroyed Ambedkar's political life: Vadiraj
Mangaluru: BR Ambedkar warned Dalits that the Congress would use and discard the SC and ST communities, claimed social activist and senior RSS pracharak Vadiraj. He was speaking at a discussion on 'Why did BR Ambedkar say Congress is a burning house?' in the city on Monday. "The Congress under Jawaharlal Nehru wanted to ensure that Ambedkar did not enter Parliament. Being a scholar in economics, Ambedkar wanted to work in the Planning Commission and various Parliamentary committees. However, the Congress rejected all his demands. The Congress was not interested in bringing Ambedkar even into the Constituent Assembly, a body established to draft the Constitution of India," he said. Vadiraj stated that the Congress ensured his defeat in the election to the Constituent Assembly. "After the Hindu Code Bill faced defeat in Parliament, Ambedkar submitted his resignation from his position as a minister in Nehru's cabinet. In his resignation letter, Ambedkar specified reasons and believed that the Congress was not working towards the development of the nation. Ambedkar knew that the priority of the Congress was not Dalits, but Muslims. He warned Dalits that the Congress is a burning house and they will be burnt alive if they enter it," he said. Ambedkar stuck to his stand against the Congress even when Nehru opposed it. His own bitter experience in life as a Congressman made him speak against the party. Though Ambedkar drafted the Constitution decades ago, it was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who announced Nov 26 as Constitution Day, Vadiraj said, and also criticised the Congress govt in Karnataka. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Google Brain Co-Founder Andrew Ng, Recommends: Read These 5 Books And Turn Your Life Around Blinkist: Andrew Ng's Reading List Undo He alleged the state govt under chief minister Siddaramaiah took the funds reserved for Dalits for the implementation of the guarantee schemes that the Congress announced in its election manifesto. Jagadish Hiremani, Karnataka BJP state secretary, said that the Congress used the identity of Ambedkar only for political benefits. "It was the Congress that destroyed the political life of Ambedkar. The Congress leaders have no right to keep the portrait of Ambedkar with them," he added. Dakshina Kannada MP Capt Brijesh Chowta and BJP district president Sathish Kumpala were present.
Time of India
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Viewing quota through religious lens insult to Ambedkar's legacy: BJP neta
1 2 Lucknow: BJP functionary Neeraj Singh emphasized the need to adopt BR Ambedkar 's ideals in today's socio-political context. Speaking at an event to mark 135th birth anniversary of BR Ambedkar at Barawan Khurd and Balda Ashrafabad, Singh accused the Samajwadi Party of double standards and said "The SP talks of social justice but divides society on caste and religion. Viewing reservation through a religious lens is against constitutional values and an insult to Ambedkar's legacy." He also praised central govt schemes like PM Awas Yojana, Ujjwala, Ayushman Bharat, and PM SVANidhi for empowering marginalized communities. Singh alleged that the Congress historically ignored Ambedkar, citing Nehru's opposition to the Hindu Code Bill, which led to Ambedkar's resignation as law minister.
