The bible of the Indian judiciary and all legislative orders, despite being one of the unobtrusively articulated constitutions of the world are facing gazillions of challenges and subversive activities in contemporary India. The burgeoning inertia of the Indian Constitution in tackling the emerging doldrums caused by the far-right Hindu nationalists turned the Indian political environment into a crucible of pernicious assault of disguised Hindus and an ephemeral ordeal for the Muslim community. From the erosion of secularism, weaponization of legal mechanisms, overhauling breach of fundamental rights, irresistible corruption imbued in the very DNA of politicians and judiciary bodies, vacuous amendments in Constitutional laws and rulings, to the crisis of the defunct democracy and the rise of authoritarianism are some of the major ultimatums to the Constitution of India in today's scenario.
India, a nation, imbibed with vibrant colors of diversity, secularism, and democracy, is now standing at the precipice of an excruciating dystopia blighted by the newly emerged unconstitutional rulings by Hindu nationalists, bringing the minorities to crossroads, demonizing them, obliterating their places of worship based on facile arguments, fervent blind support of Hindus, and unabashed, ostentatious claims of the presence of temples, potentially altering the fabric of our pluralistic society. For millions of Indian Muslims, the Indian Constitution has been a symbol of hope and resilience as well as a shield for their rights. However, in recent times, the Hindu nationalist demagogues and the surge of communal hatred strewn across the vast swathes of our country have exacerbated the political environment and communal harmony which raised a flurry of objections concerning the relevance and efficacy of the Constitution in safeguarding minorities, especially Muslims.
A clear strife against the Places of Worship Act 1991 which rubble-roused the gargantuan mosque-temple spat
In 1991, India’s Parliament passed the Places of Worship Act. That law essentially postulated that the religious character of all places of worship would remain the same as it was on August 15, 1947 — when British India was divided into India and Pakistan — and could not be changed. Back then, the trigger for the law was the mass mobilization campaign led by the BJP’s leaders to bring tens of thousands of activists to the city of Ayodhya to demand that a temple be built at the site of the historic Babri Masjid. “There are sharp stones in Ayodhya, the ground needs to be leveled,” said BJP stalwart Atal Bihari Vajpayee on the grounds of Aminabad, a day before the Babri Masjid was razed to the ground. Nonetheless, the law could not stop the violent mob from tearing down the mosque back in 1992.
When a similar mosque-atop-temple case, from Varanasi, Modi’s parliamentary constituency, reached the Supreme Court in May 2022, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud allowed an archaeological survey without any further discussion with other executive members. While noting that there could be no conversion of the place, Chandrachud said the structure’s “original character” could always be determined. That was an astute diversion, Chandrachud escaped being flummoxed by the complicated situation although we believed it to be a solution to the problem. But ironically, it opened Pandora's box instead.
Over the past three years, Hindu nationalist groups and activists have flooded the Indian judiciary with petitions across several states, alleging that Muslim religious sites are built on razed Hindu temples. The slogan, “Babri to bas jhanki hai, Kashi Mathura baki hai”, stands as an imperious taunt that continues to haunt India even today. On November 19 this year, a local court in Sambhal heard one such petition, which claimed that a Harihar Temple was converted into a mosque in 1529, pleading that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) ought “to manage and have complete control” over the site.
Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 subverts the fundamentals Indian Constitution
Addressing a rally in Gurugram in September, Union Home Minister Amit Shah declared that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, would be passed in the coming winter session of Parliament. His announcement immediately triggered outrage among sections of opposition leaders, civil society members, and most importantly, the largest minority of this hinterland; the Muslims. A meticulous observation of the Bill suggests a negative impact on the Waqf administration. It speaks about addressing the powers of the State Waqf Boards, but the fact is the Bill snatches away the powers available to the Waqf Boards under the existing Act.
The Bill also seeks to amend Section 1 relating to the short title of the Act from “the Waqf. Act, 1995”, to “the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.” Renaming of the Act is an unnecessary and impromptu decision. The Bill is selective in anting to nominate non-Muslims to the Waqf Boards but at the same time bars them from creating a waqf or donating property to a waqf as it necessitates being a practicing Muslim for the past five years which is an unabashed violation of the fundamental rights that are the spirit of our constitution. It proposes to insert new sections (3A, 3B, and 3C). The major change that the Bill attempts under clause 3 is to change the nature of waqfs and the waqf administration through an amendment of the definitions of the terms under Section 3 of the Act.
The insertion of additional words such as Collector, government organization, government property, portal, and database indicates the incisive motivation behind the formulation of the Bill. Section 107 of the Waqf Act 1995 protects waqf properties from the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, under clause 41, proposes to delete this section, which might make waqf properties vulnerable to encroachment and make the recovery of such properties difficult. Section 108A of the Waqf Act provides it an overriding effect over any other laws, which is being withdrawn under clause 41 of the Bill. An immaculate administration of waqfs can be ensured with the dedication and devotion of its administrators, accountability, and pertinent action by all the stakeholders and there’s no need for a new bill which, in other ways, contravene the fundamental ideals of our constitution.
Resisting the renaming trend: constitutional safeguards for Muslim Heritage and cultural identity
The proof that the BJP party has maintained consistency in changing names has once again come to the attention of the citizens in the political limelight. Karimganj in Assam is going to be named Sribhumi. Assam Chief Minister, an adamant Hindutva leader, Hemant Biswa Sarma claimed that a century ago, the poet Rabindranath Tagore set foot on this land for some time. At that time, he saw its lush and fertile environment and said that it should be named Sribhumi. The name of Karimganj district was changed to fulfill that caprice which portends a contentious decision for the Assamese Muslim identity.
The relabeling of Karimganj to Sribhumi is a fiend percolation of the altruistic ethos of the Indian Constitution intended to beget the invidious pitfalls of Muslim identity in Assam. Such actions are construed as discriminatory as per Article 14 as they disproportionately target a particular community's heritage, violating the principle of equality. Article 29(1) protects the right of communities to conserve their distinct culture, and relabeling places with historical significance connected to any community (Muslims in this case) might infringe upon this right. Additionally, the State Reorganization Act, of 1956, reinforces the adherence to procedural norms in renaming places including public consultation. If these steps are bypassed or if the renaming erodes cultural diversity, it'll be perceived as unconstitutional and open to judicial review.
The relevance of the Indian Constitution and responsibility of the Supreme Court
Our Constitution is a testament to India’s freedom struggle, which our ancestors participated in, against the boorish forces of the British Raj irrespective of any caste, creed, or religion. The fundamental rights enshrined in it form an integral part of its framework. These rights and prerogatives are designed to protect individual liberty, ensure equality, and promote justice in a democratic society. The constitution of India is tantamount to a panacea of corruption, social injustices, felonies, mob lynchings, gang-rapes, and all sorts of obnoxious crimes that subvert the core values of our pluralistic India. At the heart of safeguarding these rights lies the Supreme Court, the ultimate intercessor and protector. Empowered by the Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court and its judges transcends mere resolution of conflicts; it acts as a circumvallation against tyranny, oppression, and injustice.
The Constitution’s promises of justice, liberty, and equality are not mere ostensible and rhetorical ideals but living realities for every Indian citizen. This responsibility is anchored in Article 32, which empowers citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. With the critical responsibility of safeguarding the rule of law, the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court are not only mere judicial institutions but also are sentinels of justice, equality, liberty, fraternity, and the moral compass of the nation.