Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Apr 19: As the debate over criticism of the Supreme Court and the judiciary by the vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar continued, the BJP on Saturday said Parliament should be closed down if the judiciary start making laws while a former Supreme Court judge justified the apex court issuing directions to the constitutional authorities when it is vested with the power to judge the constitutionality of a law.
The BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was particularly critical over the Supreme Court entertaining petitions challenging the Waqf amendment act. Making a strong remark on the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, Mr Dubey said if the judiciary was to make laws, then there was no need for the Parliament to exist.
The apex court began hearing multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amended Waqf Act, passed by both houses of the Parliament, on Wednesday. The petitioners argued that the Act’s provisions, such as the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards and the denotification of “Waqf by user” properties, violate constitutional rights.
“If the Supreme Court makes the law then the Parliament House should be closed,” said Mr Dubey in an X post, indirectly referring to the apex court’s review of the Waqf Act. Being critical of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Dubey accused him of being responsible for what he called “civil wars” in the country.
The Congress strongly slammed the BJP MP for lashing out at the judiciary saying that his diatribe amounted to defamation. “Defamatory…attack on SC is not acceptable,” Congress leader Manickam Tagore said.
During the Waqf Act hearing, the Supreme Court noted several assurances from the Centre, including a declaration that no non-Muslim appointments would be made to Waqf Boards or Councils until further court orders.
The court also recorded the government’s assurance that no Waqf properties — including “Waqf-by-user” properties already notified or registered — would be denotified and that District Collectors would not alter their status during this period. The top court had also raised serious concerns over several provisions of the amended Waqf Act, suggesting that some clauses may not hold up under constitutional scrutiny. During the hearing, the court already indicated that it might issue an interim order to stay certain provisions of the Act.
On Mr Dhankhar’s criticism of the apex court framing a timeline for the president and the governors to decide on the bills passed by the legislatures, former Supreme Court judge Jasti Chelameswar questioned why the top court could not issue directions to the constitutional authorities when the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts have the authority to declare laws passed by Parliament or State Legislatures unconstitutional. The judges and the courts would also have the power to issue directions to constitutional authorities such as the President and Governors to perform public functions, he said.
Justice Chelameswar was responding to a question posed by retired Madras High Court judge C.T. Selvam, after delivering a lecture on ‘The 75-year journey of the Constitution of India’ in Chennai. Referring to Mr Dhankhar’s outburst against the Supreme Court, he said, “If you and I, as judges, can declare a law made by Parliament unconstitutional, to believe that they have no power to direct a public office holder to do a public act, to my mind, would be constitutionally doubtful, because I will not subscribe to that theory.”
Earlier, in his lecture, Mr Chelameswar said, the completion of 75 years since the Constitution came into force in the country must be taken as an opportunity to introspect than celebrate. He said more than 100 amendments made to the Constitution over the last 75 years, the “insane amount of money” spent by candidates to win elections, and the mounting arrears caused by insufficient budgetary allocation for the judiciary were all matters of concern.
