.jpeg)
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill became an Act on April 5 with the approval of President Droupadi Murmu. The Bill had been passed by the Lok Sabha on April 3 and subsequently approved by the Rajya Sabha on April 4.
On the same day, AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi and Congress MP from Kishanganj, Mohammad Jawed, approached the Supreme Court demanding its repeal. A total of 72 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the new law and calling for its repeal.
This raises one question: can the Supreme Court overturn a law passed by both Houses of the Parliament and approved by the President?
As the highest court in India, the Supreme Court has the authority to protect the Constitution from being misinterpreted or misused. It can declare any law unconstitutional and revoke it, provided certain procedures and rules are followed. Petitioners must prove that the law in question violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act has been challenged on the grounds that it violates Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to religious freedom. This article ensures that individuals can follow, propagate, and manage their religious practices and properties without interference.
It has also been claimed that the new Act violates Article 26, which allows religious communities to manage their own affairs, as well as Articles 29 and 30, which protect the rights of minorities.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has been approached to challenge a decision by the central government. Over the past decade, several laws enacted by the central government have faced constitutional challenges.
For example, the decision to repeal Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir was upheld by the Supreme Court, which directed the government to restore statehood and conduct assembly elections by September 2024.
In another case, the Supreme Court declared the collection of political donations through electoral bonds unconstitutional, citing violations of the Right to Information and Article 19 (1) (A). It immediately halted the use of electoral bonds and ordered the State Bank of India to disclose information related to them.
However, the Supreme Court refused to ban the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), upholding the validity of Section 6A by a majority of 4-1. This matter remains pending in court.
Additionally, in 2021, the Supreme Court put a stay on three agricultural laws, stating they favoured corporate interests and posed a threat to the minimum support price.
