Unicaus NEWS
However, he mentioned the Supreme Court should deal with probing questions like whether or not the Waqf Act flouts rights corresponding to equality, and freedom of faith.
Also Read | Supreme Court order on Waqf Act is an effective signal for democracy, says Kiren Rijiju
In a weblog submit, O’Brien mentioned the week started for the Centre with one other “black Monday”.
Mr. O’Brien identified that the Supreme Court stayed two of probably the most contentious provisions of the Waqf Act, 2025- One, an individual must be a practising Muslim for 5 years earlier than he can dedicate a property as Waqf, and the supply {that a} designated officer can adjudicate the rights of non-public residents.
The TMC chief mentioned the passing of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 in Parliament was marked by “chicanery and evasive tactics”.
“Even a casual observer of Parliament can outline how the BJP-led coalition is making a mockery of parliamentary procedure,” the Rajya Sabha MP mentioned.
He mentioned the movement to refer the invoice to a Joint Committee of each Houses of Parliament was, once more, moved on the final day of the session, and when the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was offered in Parliament, dissent notes by members of the Opposition had been “blotted out by using a whitener”.
He mentioned the Waqf (Amendment) Bill was handed in Parliament at midnight, round midnight in Rajya Sabha, and earlier than one within the morning in Lok Sabha, and added that Manipur was mentioned at 3 am.
Mr. O’Brien mentioned a serious argument made on this case was of the precept of presumption in favour of constitutionality, which signifies that when a regulation’s constitutionality is challenged, courts ought to typically presume the regulation to be legitimate and uphold it until it’s clearly confirmed in any other case.
“It assumes that legislatures act in good faith and within their authority, and that invalidating laws should be an exception, not the default,” he mentioned within the weblog submit on Monday.
The TMC chief mentioned the Supreme Court like many constitutional courts worldwide, has repeatedly affirmed this presumption, stating that courts ought to solely strike down laws whether it is “manifestly unconstitutional” or violates elementary rights past cheap doubt.
“However, given recent trends where laws have been used selectively to impose disproportionate burdens, regulate minority rights restrictively, or enable the state to overreach in areas constitutionally protected (like religious freedom and equality), the presumption in favour of constitutionality merits re-evaluation,” he mentioned.
He mentioned governance underneath the BJP has revealed a hanging sample.
“The rise of customised, targeted laws designed to affect specific communities while leaving others untouched. The legal pluralism in various religions governing themselves, was a system adopted by the country with the intention to respect diverse customs. But this is increasingly being made a source of legal exceptionalism, where groups are treated not as citizens under a single rule of law but as subjects of special, more restrictive, legal regimes,” he mentioned.
“The effect is highly symbolic, the law itself becomes a political message, not merely a regulatory tool. Citizens are left with a sense that laws are designed ‘for them’ not to protect or administer society, but for surveillance, constraint, and to signal hierarchy,” he mentioned.
He mentioned some examples of those legal guidelines are the religion-specific Citizenship Law creating exclusions based mostly on religion, and Anti-Conversion Laws in states focusing on interfaith marriage and spiritual conversion.
“Along with targeting, what these laws also do is that they place the state into a position of the judge of identity. Including the five year requirement in the Waqf Act, these laws rely on the State to decide who qualifies as a minority and who does not,” he mentioned.
“Once the State assumes the right to decide who qualifies as a legitimate member of a community, it establishes a precedent that identity is conditional, citizenship, faith, and rights can all be reduced to state-certified categories. When the State gets to decide who counts, democracy itself is at risk,” he mentioned.
Mr. O’Brien added that the Supreme Court should reply “probing questions “.
“Does the Waqf Act flout rights such as equality before the law (Article 14)? Does it flout freedom of religion (Articles 25 and 26)? Does it flout the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion (Article 15)? These are the probing questions which India hopes will be addressed by the Supreme Court,” he added.
The Supreme Court on Monday placed on maintain a number of key provisions of the Waqf regulation, together with the clause that solely these practising Islam for the final 5 years can dedicate a property as Waqf, however refused to remain your entire regulation.
