UK's indifference on Khalistan protest at embassy is unacceptable: India

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.

In a country that brands itself the “Land of the Free,” pro-Palestine students are being treated like enemies of the state. The United States—once hailed as a beacon for academic freedom—is now using deportation threats, visa revocations, and AI surveillance to silence dissenting voices on its university campuses. What started as peaceful protest against the genocide in Gaza has turned into a full-scale purge of international students who dare to speak out. As global outrage grows, America's hypocrisy on free speech has never been more glaring—or dangerous.

Point-by-Point Summary:

•    Momodou Taal Forced Out:
British-Gambian activist and former Cornell PhD student Momodou Taal has left the U.S. after facing threats of deportation. His only “crime”: suing the Trump administration for policies targeting pro-Palestine students.

•    Bold Words from Exile:
Taal called out the U.S. for suppressing dissent and ignoring its own laws:
“Is imprisoning those who speak against genocide the kind of nation you want?”

•    300+ Visas Revoked:
Trump-era directives have led to mass deportations of foreign students who participated in or supported Gaza solidarity protests.

•    Rubio's Harsh Justification:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the move, calling student protesters “lunatics” and stressing the government’s right to “remove you from our country.”

•    ACLU Slams Hypocrisy:
ACLU's Ben Wizner warned that the U.S. is now driving away the world’s brightest minds by criminalizing intellectual dissent.

•    Targeted Individuals:

•    Iranian student Alireza Doroudi arrested without cause.

•    Turkish student Rumeysa Ozturk lost her visa for an op-ed criticizing the Israeli regime.

•    Indian scholar Ranjani Srinivasan fled after agents showed up unannounced.

•    Korean resident Yunseo Chung, a green card holder, is still fighting deportation.

•    Professor Rasha Alawieh was deported despite holding a valid visa.

•    AI Used for Surveillance:
Reports confirm U.S. authorities are using artificial intelligence to flag students based on social media activity—even likes or shares.

•    Selective Freedom:
No pro-Israel lobbyist or supporter has faced deportation, even amid cases of inciting violence and harassment.

•    Global Consequences:
Calls to boycott U.S. universities are growing. The crackdown has undermined America’s status as a hub of academic freedom and global talent.

•    Final Warning:
The U.S. now risks not only its academic integrity but its moral standing. In defending a genocide abroad, it’s committing a slow-motion purge at home.

Tumakuru: Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara announced on Sunday that the much-anticipated caste census report will be formally discussed at a special meeting of the state Cabinet scheduled for April 17. The meeting will focus on the findings and recommendations of the report, which has recently been circulated among ministers.

Speaking at Tiptur in Tumakuru district, Parameshwara noted that the caste census was conducted to ensure equitable access to essential services, education, and employment for downtrodden communities.

“The Congress government, between 2013 and 2018, spent crores of rupees to gather caste-based data from 1.37 crore families,” he said. “However, implementation was delayed by successive governments for various reasons.”

He emphasized the need for careful and informed deliberation and urged political leaders to avoid commenting on the report without studying it. “Nearly 80 per cent of the information in the report is accurate,” the Home Minister said, reinforcing the document’s credibility.

The Cabinet’s decision following the April 17 meeting could have far-reaching implications on Karnataka’s reservation policy and social equity framework.