UAE’s Life Protection Plan helps over 5,500 Indian expats

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the operation of certain parts of the contentious Waqf law, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf boards and council, till the next date of hearing on May 5. The Chief Justice-led bench also said that the 'waqf by user' provision should not be denotified till then.

The Centre assured the Supreme Court that no appointments would be made to Waqf boards. The new law tweaks the composition of Waqf boards, making it compulsory to include non-Muslims as its members.

"SG (Tushar) Mehta assured that till the next date, no appointment shall take place to board and councils under the 2025 Act. He also assures that the status of waqfs, including waqf by user, already declared by notification or gazetted, shall not be changed," the court said in its order.

The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, sought 7-days' time to file a response. The court allowed the petitioners to file their rejoinder within five days after that.

Details awaited.

New Israeli strikes have killed over a dozen people, including seven children, in the besieged territory as the regime is pressing ahead with its bloody military onslaught against Palestinians.

Gaza's civil defense agency said the bodies of 10 people, including seven children, were brought to the hospital following an Israeli airstrike that targeted the al-Farra family home in central Khan Younis.

Witnesses reported continuous and intensive Israeli tank fire in the city. 

Moreover, one Palestinian was killed and four others were wounded following an aerial attack on a group of civilians in Rafah.

In central Gaza, Israeli drones struck a group of civilians in Deir el-Balah, following which a number of casualties were transferred to the al-Aqsa Hospital.

Two more people killed in an Israeli strike that targeted a group of civilians in the al-Atatra area in the northern city of Beit Lahia.

On Friday morning, the Israeli military released an “urgent and serious” evacuation notice for residents living in various neighborhoods east of Gaza City.

The United Nations on Friday said its analysis of 36 recent Israeli strikes in Gaza showed only women and children were killed and decried the human cost of the war.

Spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani cited an April 6 strike on a residential building of the Abu Issa family in Deir al-Balah, which reportedly killed one girl, four women, and one four-year-old boy.

Even the areas where Palestinians were being instructed to go in the expanding number of Israeli "evacuation orders" were also being subjected to attacks, she said.

Israel has said its troops are seizing "large areas" in Gaza and incorporating them into buffer zones cleared of their inhabitants.

The UN rights office warned that expanding Israeli evacuation orders are resulting in the "forcible transfer" of people into ever-shrinking spaces in the war-ravaged Palestinian territory.

"Let us be clear, these so-called evacuation orders are actually displacement orders, leading to displacement of the population of Gaza into ever shrinking spaces," Shamdasani said.

"The permanently displacing the civilian population within occupied territories amounts to forcible transfer, which is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and it is a crime against humanity."

Speaking to reporters in Geneva, Shamsadani said between March 18 and April 9, there were some 224 incidents of Israeli strikes on residential buildings and tents for internally displaced people.

"In some 36 strikes about which the UN Human Rights Office corroborated information, the fatalities recorded so far were only women and children," she said.

"Overall, a large percentage of fatalities are children and women, according to information recorded by our Office," she added.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.