While hearing the matter concerning the amended Waqf Act, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the violence that erupted under the pretext of opposing this law. However, this concern should not remain limited to a mere statement. A strong message must be sent to those who incite violence in the name of opposing the Waqf law. Along with that, clear directives should be issued to state governments, especially to the Bengal government, to prevent such violence at all costs. Attention must be paid to the grave incident in Murshidabad, where violent opposition to the Waqf Act led to horrifying attacks, forcing several Hindus to flee for their lives. Today, there is no certainty whether they will ever return to their homes. Murshidabad had already appealed for action against this violence, and expectations were high that the Supreme Court would take note of it. While hearing the petitions challenging the Waqf law, the Supreme Court mentioned some positive amendments to the law, but also raised serious questions about certain provisions and even issued a notice to the government. It’s difficult to predict the court’s final interpretation until responses are received, but during the first hearing itself, it gave an indication that there was no need for an interim order on the law. However, in a significant development, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued an interim order directing status quo in relation to the functionality of the Waqf Boards till the next hearing on May 5. This directive marks a noteworthy shift and signals that the Court is considering the broader implications of the law while ensuring that institutional operations are not disrupted amidst ongoing judicial scrutiny. The Waqf law underwent thorough discussion in the Joint Parliamentary Committee and was debated extensively in both Houses of Parliament. Amendments were made only after several months of deliberation. Hence, the Court should not be in haste to issue interim orders on such a significant legislation. More than 70 petitions have been filed regarding this law—most of them opposing it. However, the law should not be ignored simply because of these challenges. It is a crucial piece of legislation, though some of its provisions may indeed require revision. If any part of the Waqf law is found to violate constitutional norms, the Supreme Court should certainly act. But before issuing any interim order, it must hear both sides thoroughly and assess whether due parliamentary procedure has been followed. Also, those who protest violently against any law on the streets must be strongly discouraged. This pattern of violent protests has been growing recently. Prior to this, there was widespread violent opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act. Although demonstrations were held under the banner of peaceful protest, the Court did not intervene to assess their legitimacy. Matters worsened during the farmers’ protest, which was carried out in a similar manner. The same happened because the Supreme Court, without reviewing the constitutional validity of the farm laws, had ordered their implementation to be halted.
