Welcome Guest! You are here: Home » Views & Analysis

SC Vs Modi Govt: A Constitutional Crisis Unfolding

In what appears to be one of the most significant constitutional face-offs in recent times, India is witnessing a sharp confrontation between the Supreme Court and the Union Government — specifically, the Modi-led central leadership

Tuesday April 22, 2025 0:23 AM, Mohd Ziyaullah Khan

In what appears to be one of the most significant constitutional face-offs in recent times, India is witnessing a sharp confrontation between the Supreme Court and the Union Government — specifically, the Modi-led central leadership.

The latest standoff has taken root in the national capital and reflects a deepening crisis involving institutional overreach, political motives, and the very fabric of Indian federalism. In this article, we will explore this new trend emerging in the recent times of how the central government is trying to overtake the Supreme Court and how the latter is taking back its old sheen to counter the former.

The Trigger: Vice President vs. Supreme Court

The crisis came into the spotlight when Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar openly criticized the Supreme Court, accusing it of misusing Article 142—a provision that empowers the judiciary to ensure complete justice in any case.

Dhankhar questioned the Supreme Court’s authority to direct the President of India, arguing that such powers undermine the democratic structure since the court is an unelected body. Ironically, as critics pointed out, the Vice President himself holds a ceremonial, indirectly elected post. This remark, though not unprecedented in tone, signals a clear escalation in tensions between the executive and the judiciary.

A More Assertive Supreme Court

What has unsettled the Union Government is the recent assertiveness of the Supreme Court, which, after years of quiet submission, seems determined to uphold constitutional values without fear or favour.

The court’s interventions in the Waqf Board Amendment Act, the Wikimedia and Kunal Kamra cases, and its scrutiny of district-level administrative overreach have shown a renewed vigour in checking executive excess.

In particular, the court’s decision to put the Waqf Act amendments on hold till May 5 has rattled the government, especially since the law had already cleared both houses of Parliament using the ruling party’s brute majority.

The Waqf Amendment Controversy: A Closer Look

The new amendments to the Waqf Act proposed drastic changes that would bring long-established properties — such as mosques, graveyards, and religious institutions — under greater government scrutiny. One of the most contentious elements was giving District Magistrates the power to decide on waqf property ownership, even bypassing court decisions.

The Supreme Court posed sharp questions on this, particularly why such sweeping powers should be given to bureaucrats and whether a similar rule would be applied to Hindu endowment boards.

Also Read: Right Wing Attack on SC: A Case of Meetha Meetha Hap Hap, Karwa Karwa Thu Thu

The government had no clear answers, revealing a pattern of selective treatment. Article 26 of the Constitution allows religious communities to manage their institutions — this act, in contrast, seemed to violate that principle specifically for Muslims.

The SC’s intervention has not only brought a halt to the implementation of the amended act but also exposed what many view as the government’s hidden agenda: acquiring waqf land under the guise of reforms while deflecting attention with narratives of corruption within the Waqf Board.

Troll Army and Misinformation Campaigns

In response to the Supreme Court’s tough questioning, pro-government social media influencers and troll armies launched a campaign to undermine the court’s credibility.

Echoing the Vice President’s criticism, they questioned why the judiciary was interfering with a law passed by both houses of Parliament.

This line of argument conveniently ignores the judiciary’s constitutional mandate to review legislation for fairness, justice, and constitutional compliance.

Pattern of Judicial Confrontation

This is not the first time the Modi government has backtracked following a Supreme Court intervention. Notable examples include:

• Sedition Law (2022): SC put it on hold, questioning its relevance in a modern democracy.
• Article 370 (2023): SC raised concerns about whether a government with a brute majority could alter the status of a state.
• Electoral Bonds: While the court questioned transparency, it stopped short of ordering a return of funds.
• Delhi Riots Case: The government changed its narrative once the matter reached the apex court.

These examples suggest that the Supreme Court’s assertive stance is increasingly acting as a much-needed check on unbridled executive power.

The Governor Conundrum and Tamil Nadu Verdict

The other flashpoint in this unfolding crisis is the role of Governors in blocking state legislations. In Tamil Nadu, Governor R.N. Ravi stalled 12 bills passed by the state assembly. Similarly, the Delhi LG has often locked horns with the elected government.

The Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark verdict asserting that Governors cannot sit indefinitely on bills. Using Article 142, it compelled the Tamil Nadu Governor to clear all 12 pending bills, setting a precedent that upholds the federal structure and democratic processes in the states.

In doing so, the court also clarified that even the President of India cannot exercise a pocket veto for an unlimited time—a direct rebuke to any misuse of constitutional provisions for political ends.

A Judiciary Under Siege, But Standing Tall

The Supreme Court’s proactive role has exposed cracks in the government’s approach to governance. The institution is facing open hostility — from ceremonial figures like the Vice President to orchestrated online campaigns, but it continues to uphold its constitutional responsibility.

The reality remains that the judiciary is the last line of defense in a democracy. When the media aligns itself with the ruling powers and the opposition is too weak to act as a counterbalance, the courts become the only forum where accountability is possible.

The Battle for the Soul of Indian Democracy

This constitutional crisis is not merely about a Waqf Act or Governors stalling bills. It’s about the broader battle for India’s constitutional integrity. The government’s discomfort with judicial scrutiny and federal limits reflects a dangerous drift toward centralization and authoritarianism.

Thanks to Article 142, and a newly emboldened Supreme Court, India’s democratic spirit finds a strong defender. Whether this assertiveness will sustain and continue to push back against executive overreach remains to be seen — but for now, it is a hopeful sign in an increasingly polarized and one-sided political landscape. The judiciary’s refusal to bow down is not just a legal matter — it’s a stand for democracy itself.

(Mohd Ziyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer & editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, co-founder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media.)

Follow ummid.com WhatsApp Channel for all the latest updates.

Select Language To Read in Urdu, Hindi, Marathi or Arabic.

 

....

..