The Supreme Court has stayed key provisions of the controversial Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, sparking fresh debates on secularism in India. In this video, a senior journalist Satish Misra fiercely responds to the Central Government’s stance, emphasizing that 'Constitution defines us as a secular polity.' He also said that the amendment act was rushed in Parliament. Watch the detailed interview on how the judiciary balances minority rights and state regulation.
00:00on the show today we have satish mishraji he's a veteran journalist and a political analyst as
00:17well and we are having a conversation with him uh days after supreme court actually staged some of
00:24the key provisions which were there in the work amendment act 2025 so first of all thank you so
00:29much satishi for speaking with asianet news on such an important topic uh today topic is definitely
00:36very important as it touches the core of the constitutional values so thank you so much
00:45for inviting me for a discussion on this subject asking you something on this day on the provision
00:51which actually granted district collectors and government officials to actually go about
00:57deciding on the disputes over wakf properties uh now this is something which was of course you
01:03know passed in the bill in april this year but now the supreme court has stayed this particular
01:08provision uh do you think that it is a big failure for the central government it's a setback for them
01:13before before we pronounce um our view on whether it is good or bad for the central government let us
01:23begin that the very purpose of enacting the work act or amending the work act was political largely
01:36undoubtedly there are problems in the work properties and it could have been addressed administratively as
01:45as well as amending some provisions of the earlier act but the bjp governments or the bjp as a ruling party
01:56main card is hindu muslim unless they play on it they can't or they think that they can't remain in power
02:06so what happened as you saw that the way the act was rushed through the joint parliamentary committee
02:15despite objections from the opposition members and all that the chairman of the committee wanted to
02:24rush through the act as soon as possible and then finally because bjp and its allies have majority
02:34in both the houses of parliament they could get the act enacted and then president gave it her assent to
02:45it so having said that naturally the supreme court is the forum where aggrieved parties or who think
02:56that a wrong act has been enacted had to approach and they did approach now supreme court day before yesterday
03:09came out with this judgment saying that they are staying certain provisions yes and while rightly
03:18uh underlining uh underlining that the legislature is fully competent and empowered to enact the law which is
03:30the basic principle of separation of power in constitution now in the uh judgment of the bench
03:40which presided by the chief justice bia gawai it said that certain provisions were were wrong and were
03:52contravening the basic spirit of the law like as you said the district collectors being appointed as the
04:02final arbiter of the work property now imagine the after all the district collectors are the extended
04:12arm of the executive so executive is getting priority over it imagine unless district collector's job is to
04:23implement not judge that is the basic principle and the act had in its wisdom the ruling party in its wisdom
04:36had enacted that provision and the supreme court very rightly has stayed though final judgment is yet to come
04:45right uh satishi i completely you know by this argument that of course there has to be a separation of
04:50power and this is a case of executive overreach because definitely district collectors will fall under
04:55the uh government only but uh you know a lot of petitions which have been filed in supreme court and
05:02other courts of the country uh they say that is something which disproportionately favors the muslim population
05:09why don't we have these kind of provisions for other religious communities because uh you know the land
05:14which belongs to these religious communities they fall under direct government control so why do we have
05:20a different setup for this particular community you see i would welcome if a comprehensive act was enacted
05:30for all religious properties i have no issue with that but identifying the muslims because it fits into the
05:40political propaganda political propaganda and then electing a law i am objecting to that i mean that is in the
05:49we are secular constitution defines us as a secular polity there if you enact a law which includes christians
05:59sikhs hindus and all that and all that then there will be lot many problems there if you trust that
06:08that then the the core constituency will not be very pleased with it so what you do you pick up muslims
06:22go that question to your political propaganda and enact a law now fortunately we still have a judiciary
06:30so there's a lot of not much pressure on judiciary we all know that that it decided its own wisdom that
06:39certain provisions need to be stayed unless a final verdict and judgment comes so even even as we say
06:47and we support there has to be a uh an umbrella kind of a legal framework there will remain a lot of
06:53complexities in that aspect as well uh satish i also want to talk about uh the stay on the abolition of
07:00vakf by user doctrine you know land when we talk about that okay the land will be given to work if it
07:06is in long-term use and uh but the supreme court say that there needs to be a formal documentation
07:12uh in this particular case uh now it is for all the you know the disputes that will come in future but
07:18when we talk about the numerous petitions which are already there in the ports of india what do we do
07:24about these disputed properties because vakf has already claimed um its um authority on a lot of
07:31heritage and a lot of government land so what do what do we do about these kind of cases will supreme
07:36court again come into the picture to have a say on it or uh will all these petitions be clubbed there
07:42will be anything in the future that we can uh you know speculate the fact remains that it is a very
07:48very crucial aspect of the entire um this book properties fact remains that the authority which
07:58has been given to asi and other institutions i mean imagine the asi has come into existence much after
08:07the work concept came into being so supreme court must deliberate on this um very very deeply and should
08:20come out with a with a recommendation that which see unfortunately one has to admit
08:31that there is a lot of malpractices going on in the work properties nobody will deny
08:37that but you have to have provisions in place which justify and which gives justice because unless
08:54justice is not given the our basic constitution provisions collapse justice is the fundamental factor
09:06now here there are prophecy what what can what can be done as a as a situation that the muslims
09:16communities representatives must be taken on board a discussion must ensue what should be done with such
09:25properties which are heritage properties now in use they are our common heritage they are not only the heritage of
09:36the muslims this common heritage because when these properties came up it was the state which had created not muslim
09:47individuals though there were muslim rulers and they they built a lot many you know forts and all that and mosques and all that
09:58now here here the question comes that these properties are fragile they must be protected overuse will damage them so what you need a long term
10:13is a counseling and positivity in that regard that such heritage monuments can be protected and certain rules can be made that on these days or once in a year twice in a year this can be used for this and that see your when your intentions are okay
10:39intentions are okay, then nobody will question. Problem here comes that you have, for example,
10:50uncertainty is there. You know the way these young people like Omar Khalid and all that
10:58have been languishing without veil for five years. I mean, the community will feel offended,
11:06will feel bad about it. So, in that kind of environment, you bring an act and arbitrary,
11:14arbitrary provisions you introduce and Supreme Court has done rightly so. Supreme Court is
11:21yet to come with a final verdict. Let us see what it does. But in meanwhile, Supreme Court
11:31has said that these things can also be challenged. These things can be challenged. So, let us
11:39see how Supreme Court progresses. In its judgment, there will be not many hearings yet to be done.
11:49But welcome way is that Supreme Court has done the district collector provision. It was the
11:56most crucial one. Because that game, not many power to the executive. True. Of course, the final
12:04verdict will have to wait and watch because these are just the observations and not something which
12:09is final yet. But I also want to come to the imposition of limits on non-Muslim members on
12:17state waqf votes and the Central Waqf Council. Do you think that this is something which the
12:22community will welcome?
12:23See, listen, first of all, the Supreme Court has very rightly said, there will not be more
12:30than four non-Muslims on the board of 22 people at the center and at the state, they said,
12:38not more than three among the 11 members. Now, it is rightly said and also said, the secretary
12:48of the Waqf board will be Muslim as far as possible. Now, as far as possible is a very tricky kind
13:00of a thing. You know, executive may say it was not possible and all that. But then Supreme
13:07Court must think on this also as far as possible. But it is a welcome thing that they have observed
13:16it and they have stayed, they have erected.
13:19I also want to touch upon the Places of Worships Act because there are petitions still in court
13:27this particular ruling which Supreme Court made, where it said that we need to preserve
13:32the religious character of all these places. And, you know, the status that was there on
13:3815th of August 1947. Do you think that there will be any sort of legal challenges that we'll
13:44see in our country playing out?
13:46You see, listen, that religious worship act has already been challenged. It is under a lot
13:55of pressure. See, the act was enacted when, you know, after the Babri mosque demolished.
14:02Now, since then BJP government has come to power and it is doing every bit to dilute it, to undermine
14:14it and ensure if possible that this religious worship act is not enacted in its spirit. Now,
14:29let us see how Supreme Court deals with it. Because it is a very, very important act. See, imagine,
14:40if you begin to reopen every little mosque which is happening, imagine in Sambal it is happening,
14:50in Uttar Pradesh, many places it is happening that suddenly the Vishwindu Parachat and the
14:56Rashtri Shemakshang organizations come up and say, under this mosque there was a temple. And
15:03the issue begins. So, Supreme Court has in its own wisdom, must think it, consider it and ensure what
15:16can be done to protect this law from such elements which are not shy of, you know, proclaiming, claiming
Be the first to comment