Law of the land
All aspects of the waqf amendments need a serious study
The Supreme Court of India last week turned the spotlight on some controversial provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 passed by Parliament recently. The amendments expand government control over waqf properties at the cost of the autonomy of the Muslim community to manage them. On April 17, the Court recorded the Centre’s assurance that waqf properties, including “waqf by user”, will not be de-notified and appointments will not be made to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, based on provisions of the new law till May 5, the next hearing. The Centre thus preempted a judicial order which appeared possible during the hearing. The Court had raised concerns about the provisions in the new law which discontinued the category of waqf by user, made non-Muslims eligible for appointment in the council/waqf boards, and gave the state unilateral power to take over the control of waqf properties in the event of a dispute, pending its final resolution. The new law can potentially bring into dispute the legal status of many Muslim sites which came into existence before modern land registration laws were in place. Lawyers for the petitioners who are challenging the constitutionality of the new law, pointed out that as much as half of all waqf properties could be so by long usage and may lack documentation.

There are around 100 petitions before the Court on the issue. Questions that it will have to settle include whether the provision that a waqf can be made only by persons who have demonstrably practised Islam for at least five years violates the right to freedom of religion; whether changes in the definition of waqf to exclude “waqf by user” are discriminatory and whether the proposed inclusion of non-Muslim members to the council/waqf boards violates Article 26. Article 26, among other things, guarantees a religious group the right to “establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes” and “to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.” True, some sections of these amendments promote inclusivity and wider representation of different sects of the Muslim community, and ensure transparency and accountability in the management of waqf properties. However, there are concerns about their impact and distortion of the religious nature of the waqfs. Though there were prolonged consultations and a long parliamentary debate before the law was passed, pointedly missing was any effort to take the Muslim community into confidence on a matter that affects it. The Court is now seized of these questions which will have ramifications for the character of India as a secular, pluralist country.

Hey guys

Reading comprehension ki practice k liye aa jaiye

A fun session is awaiting


🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

lusive truce
Russia must give up its maximalist position and end the war
The Trump administration’s frustration over the lack of progress in diplomatic efforts to end the Ukraine war was evident in Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remarks in Paris last week. After talks with America’s European allies, he warned that the U.S. would “move away” if there was no progress “within days”. U.S. President Donald Trump appeared to endorse the comments. Despite Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to end the war “within 24 hours”, months into his presidency, he remains far from building a consensus on even a temporary ceasefire. If he expected the Russians to jump on a proposal for a ceasefire in return for some Ukrainian concessions, he has miscalculated. The U.S. has already ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and declared it would not be part of any post-war security guarantees for Kyiv prior to direct negotiations with Russia. It also arm-twisted Ukraine into proposing a 30-day ceasefire. However, while Mr. Trump appears focused on an immediate cessation of hostilities, the Kremlin has insisted that any ceasefire deal must be part of a comprehensive peace agreement that addresses its core security concerns. The U.S. is reportedly circulating a new proposal to end the fighting — shared with European and Ukrainian officials, it has the U.S. prepared to recognise Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014 following a contentious referendum, as Russian territory. The plan also takes NATO membership “off the table” for Ukraine and seeks to freeze the conflict along the front line, effectively leaving the territories Russia captured since the war began in 2022 in its hands. After responses from Ukraine and Europe, the U.S. plans to approach Moscow. But Russia has stuck to its maximalist positions, which include rejecting security guarantees for Ukraine and insisting on its demilitarisation.

Wars rarely end through maximalist positions. While Russia has made territorial gains, it has also paid a price. Ukraine, despite its apparent weakness on the battlefield, signals that it is ready to continue the fight, with western support. Europe has also made it clear that it will continue backing Ukraine — with or without American involvement. For any lasting peace in Ukraine, it is important to address Russia’s legitimate security concerns. However, the Russian demands that Ukraine limit its defence partnership with its allies or accept restrictions on its military capabilities are untenable for any sovereign nation. So, Mr. Trump should continue to strive for common ground between all the parties — the U.S., Ukraine, Europe and Russia — for a durable peace, instead of appeasing just one power.

Join now ✅✅

EDITORIAL PDF - 21ST APRIL 2025

EDITORIAL PDF - 22ND APRIL 2025

Let’s meet at 10:00 am

Reading comprehension ki practice k liye aa jaiye


🔥🔥🔥🔥

Matters that count
Attempts to intimidate the judiciary pose a threat to democracy
The Supreme Court of India has been subjected to unfounded criticism by sections of the ruling BJP, and Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, with regard to the separation of powers between the various branches of the government, and the principle of checks and balances. Not surprisingly, a Supreme Court bench took note of the charge that it was intruding into executive and legislative functions. In one petition, the Court was urged to direct the Centre to act under Articles 355 and 356 to deal with the situation of violence in West Bengal. In another, the Court’s intervention was sought to curtail obscene content on online platforms. The Calcutta High Court had earlier ordered the deployment of Central forces to stem violence in Murshidabad in West Bengal. Judicial review of legislative and executive decisions is an integral part of India’s constitutional democracy. Decisions of the executive and the legislature can be examined by the judiciary to determine whether they are consistent with the Constitution, and even constitutional amendments are subject to the ‘basic structure’ test. There are multiple constitutional avenues for judicial intervention in the making and enforcement of law. Article 13 gives the judiciary the power to strike down laws that are violating fundamental rights. Articles 32 and 226 give the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, and beyond.

The notion that the judiciary is subservient to legislature is out of line with the constitutional scheme. In fact, the judiciary is expected to insulate the rule of law from the pressure of public opinion that members of the legislature represent. It is in this constructive friction between various institutions of the state that a society can achieve stability in governance. The argument that legislatures can pass any law on the basis of a majority is a majoritarian argument. The erasure of the distinction between the executive and legislature has already created a crisis of accountability in governance at the national and State level in India. The attempt to intimidate the judiciary in the name of legislative supremacy is a threat to democracy — not its furtherance. In the recent judgment that set timelines for the Governor and President for acting on laws passed by the Assembly, the Supreme Court restored the authority of the elected legislatures, which was being trampled upon by an unelected Governor and arbitrary actions by the President. The critics of the judiciary miss this point altogether.