Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien criticized the government after the Supreme Court stopped some of the major provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act and said that it is not just a attack on those who make the law making.
However, he said that the Supreme Court would have to answer such questions whether the Waqf Act violates rights like equality and religious freedom.
In a blog post, O’Brien said that the week started with another “black Monday” for the Center.
O’Bheen said that the Supreme Court has banned the two most controversial provisions of the Waqf Act, 2025 – first, a person is required to be a Muslim for five years before dedicating his property as Waqf, and the second provision that a designated officer can judge the rights of individual citizens.
The TMC leader said that passing the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 in Parliament is the result of “deceit and evasive strategy”. The Rajya Sabha MP said, “Even a general observer of Parliament can explain how the BJP -led coalition is making fun of the parliamentary process.”
He said that the proposal to hand over the bill to the joint committee of both houses of Parliament was brought back on the last day of the session and when the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was presented in Parliament, the disagreeable notes of opposition members were “erased using whitener”.
He said that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill was passed in Parliament at midnight, about midnight in Rajya Sabha and before 1 am in Lok Sabha. He said that Manipur was discussed at three in the morning.
O’Bheen said that the main plea in this case was of the principle of estimates in favor of constitutionalism, which means that when the constitutionality of a law is challenged, the courts should generally consider the law to be valid and maintain it until it is clearly proved.
He said in a blog post on Monday, “It has been assumed that legislatures will work harmony and under their rights, and it should be an exception to invalidate the laws, not default.”
The TMC leader said that like many constitutional courts around the world, the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed this notion and said that the courts should only cancel the law when it is “clearly unconstitutional” or violates fundamental rights beyond proper doubt.
He said, “However, in view of recent trends, where selectively inconsistent burden of laws, restrictively regulating minority rights, or to enable the state to encroach in constitutionally protected areas (such as religious freedom and equality), it is necessary to re -evaluate the consumption in favor of constitutionalism.”
He said that amazing patterns have come out under BJP’s rule.
He said, “The rise of specific, targeted laws designed to influence specific communities and leave other communities untouched. Legal plurality that controls themselves in various religions, the country was a system adopted with the intention of honoring various customs. But it is being made a source of legal exception rapidly, where groups are considered to be a source of legal exception, where the groups are considered to be a citizen under the same law.
He said, “Its effect is highly symbolic, the law itself becomes a political message, not only a regulatory equipment. In citizens, the feeling goes home that the laws are made for them, not to protect the society or administration, but to indicate monitoring, obstructing and hieving.”
He said that some examples of these laws are the Religion-specific citizenship law which creates boycott on the basis of faith, and anti-religious marriage and anti-conversion laws in the states.
He said, “Along with targeting, these laws also keep the state in a position to decide. The Waqf Act, incorporating five years imperative in the Waqf Act, depends on the state to decide who is a minority and who is not.”
He said, “Once the state takes the right to decide who is a legitimate member of a community, he sets an example that identity is conditional, citizenship, faith and rights, all can be limited in categories certified by the state. When the state decides who starts to decide who matters, democracy itself is in danger.”
O’Brien said that the Supreme Court would have to answer “investigation questions”.
He said, “Does the Waqf Act violate rights like equality (Article 14) before the law? Does it violate religious freedom (Article 25 and 26)? Does it violate the prohibition of discrimination (Article 15) on the basis of religion?
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed several major provisions of the Waqf Act, including the provision that only those who have followed Islam for the last five years can dedicate the property as Waqf, but refused to stop the entire law.
