22

Apr

Supreme Slipper Hurled at Hindutva Forces

image

Dr. Salim Khan

Mumbai | Wednesday | 23 April 2025

The Modi government’s unease following the Supreme Court’s recent interventions, particularly regarding the Waqf issue, was laid bare by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s sharp rebuke of the judiciary. A seemingly routine court order, setting a three-month deadline for the President to act on a bill, triggered an outburst. There’s nothing controversial about the court using its constitutional powers this way. Neither the President nor the Law Ministry objected. But Dhankhar, boiling over like a kettle hotter than the tea inside, erupted in a fit of dramatic outrage.

“This is the first time the President has been directed to act within a set timeframe,” Dhankhar protested. “We must be extremely sensitive about whom we are directing and how!” His remarks gave the impression that royalty had been insulted, and his loyal aide couldn’t contain the fury. But the President, while holding a high office, remains a citizen of the Republic, not a deity. Reminding them of constitutional duties is a right not only of the Supreme Court but of every citizen.

Dhankhar’s rhetoric exposes a feudal mindset—one where power demands reverence and expects submission from below. Hiding behind the stature of the President, he positioned himself above criticism. This is classic aristocratic thinking: people in high office consider themselves immune from scrutiny and believe that courts should surrender to the sentiment of the majority instead of upholding the law.

 

Article at a Glance
 
The Modi government's discomfort with the Supreme Court's recent interventions, particularly regarding the Waqf issue, was evident in Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's vehement criticism of the judiciary. Following a court order directing the President to act within a specific timeframe, Dhankhar expressed outrage, suggesting that such a directive undermines the dignity of the office.
His comments reflect a feudal mindset, where those in power expect deference and resist scrutiny. The article argues that Dhankhar's frustration stems from the Supreme Court's examination of the Waqf Amendment Act, which the government itself had sought guidance on. Additionally, a coordinated smear campaign against the judiciary has emerged, with online trolls attacking the Supreme Court and its judges.
The author highlights the irony of those who once supported the Court now turning against it, revealing a hypocrisy that undermines their previous stances. Overall, the article critiques the government's attempts to suppress dissent and manipulate public perception of the judiciary.

We saw this when Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court claimed that Parliament should operate according to the will of the majority, rather than through its legislative process. When questioned by the Supreme Court, he apologised behind closed doors, only to later reassert his views publicly—a typical display of Hindutva’s opportunism and duplicity.

Dhankhar posed the question, “Where are we heading as a country?” Ironically, the answer lies in the very government he represents. Under his watch, a law targeting Muslim properties was swiftly passed. A farmers’ law—passed under his chairmanship—was repealed after massive protests. The NRC, though legislated, remains stalled. The direction of the country reflects the government’s contradictions and whims.

His statement, “Our Constitution-makers never imagined a day when the President would be ordered to act within a timeframe,” was steeped in exaggerated drama. Everyone knows that the President, like others in office, follows the government's lead. If the President hesitates, let the government withdraw the bill. Why let it hang indefinitely?

Dhankhar’s real frustration lies with the Supreme Court’s stance on the Waqf Act. Since he couldn’t address it directly, he aimed elsewhere. This isn't the first time he’s challenged the judiciary—he’s previously slammed the collegium system too. Despite being a lawyer and a presiding officer of the Rajya Sabha, Dhankhar's comments betray either ignorance or deliberate political theatre.

It was, in fact, the government’s counsel who sought the Supreme Court’s directions on the Waqf issue. If Dhankhar finds that problematic, he should question the Solicitor General, not the judges. The law is clearly on shaky ground. The Solicitor General’s fumbling answers and nervousness reveal just how indefensible the legislation is.

For now, the Court has only stayed implementation, not issued a final verdict. The stay prevents the government from acting under a disputed law until clarity is established. Yet, Dhankhar raged as if a damning judgment had already been passed. If he, a former lawyer, cannot distinguish between a verdict and an interim order, then what hope is there for informed discourse?

For someone who champions democracy, Dhankhar has ironically suspended over 150 opposition MPS in a single sweep. Like Modi and his allies, he seems allergic to dissent. Their vision of democracy demands obedience, not deliberation.

He went so far as to claim that judges are acting like a “super-parliament,” warning that they are making laws and executing duties without accountability. But this is false. Judges do not make laws—they review them for constitutional validity. And yes, judges can be held accountable. Many have faced consequences, including imprisonment.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the Waqf Amendment Act, passed by the Modi government, has unsettled Hindutva forces. In retaliation, a coordinated smear campaign has emerged against the judiciary. Online trolls labelled the Supreme Court the “Sharia Court of India.” Some even photoshopped images of the Court’s dome with a crescent moon, attempting to portray it as a mosque.

Nagendra Pandey accused the Court of being anti-majority. A user named CA Rajeev Gupta launched personal attacks on Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, accusing him of bias and even calling for an investigation. They took offence at the Chief Justice's simple, factual remark:

"Before British rule, there was no system to register mosques. Many were built in the 13th to 15th centuries. So now the government expects people to produce documents for them?"

The online backlash spiralled. Some even called for the Court to be shut down, branding it a “Supreme Brothel.” Others declared that institutions like the Waqf Board are incompatible with secular India, completely ignoring the fact that the Board has already been declared a non-religious entity and includes Hindus as members.

What’s ironic is how the same groups who once hailed the Court for prioritising faith over facts in the Ram Mandir verdict are now furious. Their hypocrisy has come full circle. Fate has compelled them to bite the very hand they once applauded.

Justice-loving citizens haven’t stayed silent either. On social media, they’ve delivered facts with such force that Hindutva supporters have been left stunned—metaphorically slapped into silence even before a final ruling is made.

**************

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed