MEP TRINAMOOL Congress Derek O’Brien killed the government after the Supreme Court submitted some key provisions of the WAQF Amendment Act, with the fact that it was more than just rap on the joints of those who indulged the “subtra” legislation.
However, he said that the Supreme Court would have to deal with probing issues, such as whether the WAQF law raises rights such as equality, and freedom of religion.
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to remain the entire WAQF Amendment Act, but temporarily suspended specific provisions, including a clause requiring that a person be five years of practicing Muslims to create a waqf.
Also read | SC refuses to remain waqf an act, keeps these key provisions
The bench of the main judge of India Bravai and Justine Augustine George Masih noted that some parts of the altered act require some protection.
In the blog post O’Brien said that the week began for the center with another “black Monday”. He said that stay on key provisions represents “rap on the joints” of what he called the “legislation of sub -drag”, but stressed that wider issues concerning a selective legal worker and minority rights persist.
The TMC leader pointed out that the Supreme Court remained two of the most controversial provisions of the WAQF Act, 2025- one must be a practicing Muslim for five years to donate property such as WAQF.
The TMC leader said that the approval of the WAQF law (amendment), 2025 in Parliament, was marked “Chicanery and Evasive Tactics”.
Mockery
“Even the occasional observer of the parliament can outline how the BJP coalition led by the parliamentary procedure,” said Rajya Sabha, deputy.
Also read | “Burns your face with acid”: TMC leader threatens the leader of BJP, sparks outrage
He said that the proposal to refer the law to the Common Committee of both Chambers of Parliament was again moved on the last day of the meeting and when the Parliament was submitted a report on the joint parliamentary committee (JPC).
He said that the WAQF Act (amendment) was approved in a dead night parliament, around midnight in Rajya Sabha and in front of one morning in Lok Sabha, and added that the manipur was discussed at 3 am.
O’Brien stated that the main argument imposed in this case was the principle of assumption in favor of constitutionality, which means that when the constitutionality of the law is attacked, the courts should generally assume that the law is valid and observed, unless clearly proven.
“It is assumed that legislative legislation is acting in good faith and their authority and that the invalidity of laws should be an exception, not the default,” he said in Monday’s blog.
Courts should only hit legislation
The TMC leader said that, as many constitutional courts around the world, the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed this assumption and stated that the courts should only affect legislation if it is “obviously unconstitutional” or violates fundamental rights without reasonable doubts.
“Given the recent trends in which laws were selectively used to store excessive burden, they regulate minority rights of limited or allow the state to cross in constitutionally protected areas (such as religious freedom and equality).
He said that the BJP administration revealed a striking pattern.
“The rise of adapted, targeted laws intended to influence specific communities, while others leave untouched.
Also read | WAQF Change Act: What did SC say? Cong ‘Imran says “will continue fighting”
“The effect is highly symbolic, the law itself becomes a political message, not just a regulatory tool. Citizens remain the feeling that the laws are designed for them to protect or manage society, but for supervision, restriction and hierarchy of signal,” he said.
He said that some examples of these laws are the law on citizenship specific to religion, which creates exclusion based on faith and laws against conversion in countries focused on inter -religious marriage and religious transformation.
“Together with the targeting that these laws also do, it is that they place the state in the position of the judge of identity. The inclusion of a five -year request in the WAQF law rely on these laws to decide who qualifies as a minority and who does not,” he said.
“As soon as the state takes the right to decide who qualifies as a legitimate member of the community, it determines the precedent that identity is conditional, citizenship, faith and law to be limited to state categories. When the state decides who counts, democracy itself is democracy itself,” he said.
O’Brien added that the Supreme Court would have to answer the questions of the probe.
“Is the law before the law (Article 14)? This is the freedom of religion (Articles 25 and 26)?
What did the Supreme Court said?
On the basis of the Provisional Order on the Supreme Court bench, the provision remained in the law that the person should be a practicing of Islam for five years to create a waqf.
The Court stated that the provisions would be imposed until the rules were framed in determining whether a person was an Islamic practitioner. The bench stated that without such a rule or mechanism, this provision would lead to any power of power.
The Top Court also appointed a provision that allowed the collector to decide on a dispute as to whether the WAQF property interfered with the government’s property.
He stated that the collector could not be allowed to decide on the rights of personal citizens, and this will violate the department of powers.
The Supreme Court ruled that as long as the court decides, no third -party rights can be created against any parties and the provisions of such powers will remain to the collector.
Does the law on playing, such as equality before the law (Article 14) include? Is the freedom of religion shut down (Articles 25 and 26)?
The Top Court also stated that the provisions that the WAQF state council should include a provision that no more than three non -Muslim members, and that more than four non -Muslims will be included in the WAQF Central Councils. The court also noted that, if possible, it should be the CEO of the Board of Directors Muslim.
(Tagstotranslate) WAQF Act
