Top court ruling
By pausing some key aspects of the contentious amendments to the Waqf Act, the Supreme Court of India has sent a clear and unequivocal message to the ruling dispensation at the Centre about the imperative need to pay scrupulous attention to due process, particularly in subjects that pertain to the religious practices of minorities (Front page, September 16).
Though laws enacted by Parliament carry a presumption of constitutional validity, the onus lies on the part of the executive to ensure it does not violate constitutional principles, fundamental rights, and is not arbitrary in nature.
M. Jeyaram,
Sholavandan, Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court took the middle ground on September 15. Judicial pragmatism is evident in this well-balanced order. Instead of directly challenging Parliament, the Court expressed support for reform while being considerate to the concerns of minorities. By doing this, it has aimed to maintain a reasonable level of satisfaction for the community and the government.
The message is clear: efficiency and accountability in waqf management are desirable, but not at the expense of arbitrariness or constitutional rights.
Amir Tyagi Qasmi,
Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh
The Waqf Act, presented as governance reform, is fraught with provisions that deepen disempowerment and impoverishment rather than promote justice. Its most contentious clauses — already stayed by the Supreme Court — require trustees to prove they are practising Muslims and restrict administration bodies to Muslims alone. The proviso demanding proof of practice is particularly absurd, reducing faith and spiritual trust to bureaucratic certification. Meanwhile, the Act’s so-called “inclusivity” is itself discriminatory: it thrusts non-Muslims into waqf management, even though no equivalent laws govern non-Muslim endowments, signalling an arbitrary intrusion into community autonomy. The stay on the District Collector’s powers is a welcome check on administrative overreach, but the broader judicial stay underscores the Act’s structural flaws. Left uncorrected, these measures marginalise progressive voices, concentrate authority, and threaten the charitable potential of waqf assets. The Court must ultimately strike down these provisions and reconsider the Act in full in sync with the popular expectations of the community at large.
M. Jameel Ahmed,
Mysuru
September 14 match
Sport has ceased to be apolitical a long time ago. Our players not shaking hands with their Pakistani counterparts, after having played against them, was not cricket. Such an ‘ungentlemanly spectacle’ should have been avoided. If Pahalgam continues to be a sore point, India should not have played Pakistan. It is not a surprise that sportspersons have become ‘helpless willing pawns’ in the hands of politicians.
C.G. Kuriakose,
Kothamangalam, Kerala
“It is not cricket” is a phrase used to describe anything that seems unfair, ungentlemanly or unsportsmanlike. A former Indian cricket captain, in his autobiography, wrote that cricket is a hard game played with a hard bat and hard ball; but it is a game not war. All this seems to have been proven wrong on September 14 during the India-Pakistan match. Long live ‘the cricket’ we knew.
R. Raman,
Varanasi
Published – September 17, 2025 12:24 am IST
