Fear or Favour: Judicial Disparities in Handling Hindu and Muslim Religious Cases.

Waqf Row in SC: Judiciary must ensure consistent and timely adjudication of religious cases, regardless of the community involved.

By M Nageswara Rao

 In 2012, Swami Dayananda Saraswati (deceased in 2015) filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of laws enabling state control over Hindu temples, their lands, and income. The petition argued that these laws violate Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (non-discrimination), 25 (freedom of religion), and 26 (religious autonomy) of the Constitution, as Hindu temples face state interference while mosques, churches, and other minority religious institutions remain largely autonomous. Despite raising critical questions about religious autonomy, the case remained pending for 13 years. In February 2025, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition, directing petitioners to approach High Courts without addressing the substantive issues or granting relief.

In contrast, challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which amended the Waqf Act, 1995, received swift judicial attention. Petitions alleging violations of the same constitutional provisions—Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26—were filed shortly after the Act received presidential assent on April 5, 2025. The Supreme Court heard these petitions on April 16 and 17, 2025, granting an interim stay and scheduling further proceedings for May 5, 2025. This rapid response, including substantive engagement and interim relief within 11 days of assent, contrasts sharply with the temple case’s 13-year delay and procedural dismissal.

The stark contrast in urgency—13 years for the temple case versus 11 days for the Waqf case—raises questions about judicial prioritisation. Both cases involve fundamental rights under the same constitutional provisions, yet the Court has shown greater reluctance to address state control over Hindu temples compared to safeguarding waqf autonomy.

This disparity reflects a broader pattern in the judiciary’s handling of religious cases. Hindu religious cases, such as those concerning state control over temples, Ram Janmabhoomi, Gyanvapi, Sabarimala, and the Places of Worship Act face prolonged delays or interventions that override Hindu traditions. The Supreme Court’s intervention in Sabarimala, altering temple practices, contrasts with its reluctance to interfere in Muslim practices unless framed as progressive, such as in the triple talaq case. Meanwhile, Muslim-related cases, including those on triple talaq, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and the Waqf Act, consistently receive prompt attention.

This pattern of differing judicial approaches risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality. The perception that Hindu religious rights are consistently delayed or dismissed, while Muslim grievances receive swift favourable attention, undermines the judiciary’s commitment to equality before the law and equal protection under the law. To restore trust, the judiciary must ensure consistent and timely adjudication of religious cases, regardless of the community involved.

(Taken from X handle of  M Nageswrawa Rao who is a Former Director of CBI)

Upananda Brahmachari, Editor, Hindu Existence tweeted through his X handle at @HinduExistence on such a judicial discrimination on Hindus….

On Waqf matter, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain interacted with ANI on  Judaical injustice being made on Hindus….

…
Courtesy: ANI