Indian woman executed in UAE for killing 4-month-old baby

In a powerful courtroom exchange, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday sharply questioned the Centre over controversial changes in the Waqf Amendment Act, especially the provision that allows non-Muslims to be part of the Central Waqf Council.

The hearing was conducted by a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and included Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. The court is currently hearing 73 petitions filed against the amended law, which has stirred protests in several parts of the country.

Key Questions Raised by the Court

1. Should the Petitions Be Shifted to High Courts?

Chief Justice Khanna opened the hearing by asking:

•    Should these petitions be heard by a High Court?

•    What specific constitutional questions are the petitioners raising?

Petitioners Argue Violation of Religious Freedom

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that:

•    The new law violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which protects the right to manage religious affairs.

•    Giving the Collector judicial authority under the law is unconstitutional, since the Collector represents the government.

What Is 'Waqf by User' — And Why It's Controversial

•    Sibal explained that ‘Waqf by user’ refers to properties that have long been used for religious or charitable purposes and are thus treated as Waqf, even if no written deed exists.

•    The new law removes this recognition if the property is government land or under dispute — which he said undermines centuries of Islamic tradition.

•    “If a waqf was created 3,000 years ago, they’ll ask for the deed,” Sibal remarked.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi added that nearly half of India’s 8 lakh Waqf properties (approx. 4 lakh) are based on this concept.

The Chief Justice acknowledged the complexity, noting:

“We are told the Delhi High Court is built on Waqf land. There is misuse, yes—but there are genuine Waqfs too.”

Major Flashpoint: Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Council

“Will Muslims Be on Hindu Boards? Say It Openly” — Chief Justice Asks Centre

One of the strongest moments in the hearing came when the court questioned the Centre’s move to allow non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council.

The Chief Justice asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta:

“Are you saying you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly.”

This pointed question was aimed at highlighting perceived inconsistencies in how religious communities are treated in administrative roles concerning religious institutions.

 Centre Defends the Law

•    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the law was thoroughly debated and passed in both Houses of Parliament after review by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.

•    However, the bench asked:

“If a ‘Waqf by user’ was validated earlier by a court, does the new law now void that?”

The court observed that ancient religious structures often have no documentation:

“You cannot undo something that has stood for centuries.”

Petitioners Request Partial Stay

•    The petitioners clarified they are not seeking to block the entire Act, only some controversial provisions.

Concern Over Rising Tensions

The Chief Justice also expressed alarm over violence and tensions triggered by the law.
“It is very disturbing,” he said.

When Mehta said “they think they can pressurize the system,” Sibal responded, “We don’t know who is pressuring whom.”

What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will continue the hearing tomorrow. The court has emphasized that while there are cases of misuse, many Waqfs are genuine, and religious freedoms must be protected under the Constitution.

A controversy has erupted in Karnataka after two Brahmin students were allegedly asked to remove their sacred thread (Janivara) and religious wristbands before entering the Common Entrance Test (CET) examination halls. The incident reportedly occurred on Thursday in Shivamogga and Bidar districts, drawing sharp criticism from community groups and prompting a swift response from state ministers.

Videos and complaints shared by parents and community organizations brought the matter to public attention on Friday. Several Hindu groups condemned the action as insensitive and discriminatory.

Investigation

Reacting to the incident, Karnataka’s Higher Education Minister Dr. M.C. Sudhakar called the alleged directive “unacceptable” and assured a thorough inquiry. “It is an excessive act. If this happened at any examination center, we will take it seriously. We must respect the traditions of all castes and religions. I do not support such actions,” the minister told PTI.
He added, “I will seek a report from the concerned officials and consider appropriate steps. This is not about politics or gaining political mileage. We have no intention of hurting the sentiments of any community.”

Education Minister Madhu Bangarappa, whose home district is Shivamogga, also addressed the issue. “There is no legal provision that permits such actions. Although this matter doesn’t fall directly under my ministry, I will coordinate with the concerned department. Since the incident happened in my home district, I will instruct officials to initiate appropriate action,” he said.

Hindutva Organizations Condemn

Community bodies such as the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Maha Sabha and Vishwa Sanghatane strongly condemned the alleged directive, stating that enforcing such measures under the guise of examination protocols was a violation of religious rights.

Members of the Bhramina Sanghagala Okkuta submitted a formal complaint on Thursday to Shivamogga Deputy Commissioner Gurudatta Hegde, according to a report.

Broader Context

The controversy comes amid ongoing debates over religious expression in Karnataka’s educational institutions. Notably, the previous BJP-led state government had banned students from wearing hijabs in classrooms—a move upheld by the Karnataka High Court and currently under review by the Supreme Court.

New Delhi: In the wake of the deadly terror strike in Pahalgam that claimed 26 lives, Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Friday personally reached out to the Chief Ministers of all states, instructing them to take immediate action to identify and deport Pakistani nationals who are overstaying in India beyond the newly imposed visa deadlines, according to official sources.

During the calls, Shah emphasized the urgency of locating any Pakistani nationals still residing in their respective states and ensuring their departure in compliance with the fresh directives. He also made it clear that while overstayers must be deported, Hindu Pakistani nationals holding valid long-term visas are exempt from these measures and should not face any action.

This directive follows India’s sweeping decision to revoke all visas issued to Pakistani nationals from April 27 onwards. Medical visas, however, will remain valid only until April 29. The government has also urged all Indian citizens currently in Pakistan to return home at the earliest.

Furthermore, as part of its comprehensive response to the April 22 terror incident, India has withdrawn Pakistani access to the SAARC Visa Exemption Scheme (SVES). Pakistani nationals currently in India under SVES were given a 48-hour deadline—until Friday—to leave the country.

The Home Minister had just returned from a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir and attended a high-level Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting in Delhi, where key decisions were taken, including suspending the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan.

Meanwhile, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri briefed foreign envoys about the nature of the Pahalgam attack and the measures India is undertaking in its aftermath.

Addressing a public gathering in Bihar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the attack and asserted that India will "identify, track, and punish" every terrorist and their "backers," vowing to pursue the perpetrators to the "ends of the earth."

The government has also begun consultations with both ruling and opposition political parties, seeking unity on national security even as questions were raised regarding potential lapses that led to the attack.