Judicial Overreach

In a democracy worth its name, the legislature makes the law and the judiciary interprets it. Occasionally, however, courts cross the boundary, entering the slippery terrain of legislating from the bench. By questioning and provisionally restraining key provisions of the progressive Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Supreme Court court has overreached, risking both judicial propriety and social progress.

The Waqf (Amendment) Act was meant to fix long-standing defects in the management of waqf properties. It sought to regularise waqf-by-user lands, allow non-Muslims to be appointed to Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, and empower Collectors to address contested claims. These reforms, far from being whimsical, were grounded in extensive consultation, legislative history and public demand. The amendments responded to lakhs of representations from ordinary citizens whose properties had been wrongfully subsumed into waqf estates over the decades.

Yet the Supreme Court, barely days into hearing challenges to the law, signalled that it might stay key provisions. After red-flagging concerns over the inclusion of non-Muslims and the treatment of waqf-by-user, it extracted an undertaking from the Centre not to make new appointments or change the status of waqf properties until further notice. It also hinted at staying powers granted to district Collectors.

This approach turns constitutional practice on its head. The Indian judiciary has long recognised that Acts of Parliament enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. Courts may strike down laws, but only after thorough hearings and detailed findings not on the basis of preliminary readings or speculative harms. A stay at the threshold, absent compelling urgency, amounts to a veto on the legislature’s authority.

By pausing the operation of duly enacted law, the Supreme Court has effectively frozen reform without adjudicating its merits. Worse, it risks encouraging frivolous petitions against any legislative act in the hope that an interim stay will halt implementation. The line between judicial protection and judicial usurpation thus grows perilously thin.

The specific reforms under attack are hardly radical. Including non-Muslims in waqf bodies does not erode religious freedom but strengthens secular governance. Subjecting waqf-by-user claims to scrutiny protects the rights of millions whose lands have been swept into waqf registers without due process. Empowering district authorities to address disputes helps unclog courts and prevent endless litigation. These changes align with both constitutional principles and good public administration.

One would expect the Supreme Court, custodian of both democracy and federalism, to respect the will of Parliament unless and until compelling constitutional violations are demonstrated. Instead, it has acted precipitously, intruding into the legislative domain with neither the full benefit of arguments nor the weight of a final judgment.

There is a grave risk here. If courts treat legislation as mere suggestions to be suspended at whim, India’s hard-won separation of powers will erode. Parliament, flawed though it may be, remains the people’s voice. Curtailing its authority on tentative grounds insults not just lawmakers but the democratic process itself.