The President is historically a creature of the legislative majority and is also bound by the advice of the Union Council of Ministers. To liken a president to an “elevated” monarch is a misinterpretation of the constitution, whose preamble begins with “We, the People of India...”
Published Apr 21, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 21, 2025 | 9:00 AM
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar.
Synopsis: The Supreme Court is evidently under stress – and it is for citizens and the legal community to wake up, become more constitutionally literate, and speak out on the nuances because we seem to be in danger of frequently facing monarchical interpretations of a democratic republic.
This has been a phenomenal month for the Supreme Court of India. Not that other months are not significant for the highest court of the land, but the way things are now in the country, the Supreme Court is frequently in the news as a last resort on critical issues that are shaking the very foundations of the republic and constitutional nuances concerning some grey areas.
However, in the current month, the judges have spoken quite clearly on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, concerning Muslim charities, the Urdu language, and the powers of the governor in the case relating to Tamil Nadu in a manner that reaffirms faith not only in the way constitutional governance functions in India, but also the underlying social principles or nuances of fact that can easily be misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted in the public discourse.
The rulings of the court have not been able to do full justice in the eyes of the public because the judges continue to be criticised in one way or another – and since court verdicts on some gaps in the Constitution are of an interpretative kind, tongues are wagging.
Wagging tongues are part of a democracy, but what we need is an adherence to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is described as “supreme” for a reason. One must hope and believe that the authority of the court is recognised on a key point – that the Supreme Court is the last arbiter standing firm.
Legislatures are disbanded and re-elected, governments come and go but what enables this is the Constitution. The institution that sustains this with a sense of continuity and without much room for ambiguity is the Supreme Court as the highest section of an independent judiciary.
Let us look at the three cases hitting the headlines this month, not necessarily in the order they were presented.
In the case involving Urdu, the court described it as a “pitiable digression from reality” to equate Hindi with Hindus and Urdu with Muslims.
“Language is not religion. Language does not even represent religion,” Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Vinod Chandran said in a ruling on a signboard in Maharashtra, and showcased Urdu as a great example of the Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb or Hindustani culture in which intermingling of people is natural.
Yet, as we know from social media, WhatsApp forwards, Urdu is often targeted by religious bigots, and in the process, even social harmony, art, and literature that speak for Hindu-Muslim unity or social harmony are targeted.
The Supreme Court, as I see it, functions like the third umpire armed with an action replay camera in a cricket match and therefore as an instrument of credibility and trust. It sees things as they are with principles in mind, and not as some would want them to be for their vested interests or due to shortsightedness.
If the legislature and executive are like batsmen and bowlers who may leave the field by turn, the Supreme Court stands like a rock. The rise of social media with its deliberate and ill-informed attempts at twisting narratives gives the top court both an opportunity and an imperative to put things in order.
In the case regarding Waqf charities, the Supreme Court put Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government on the backfoot by questioning the controversial amendment to the act concerning Waqfs that legitimised the appointment of non-Muslims in the supervision of Muslim charities, as also empowering government officials to decide on ownership of doubtful Waqf properties some of which go back centuries and have no modern records as proof.
What concerns me is that political parties, including the BJP and the Congress, may be deliberately but quietly putting such contentious points in the public domain to build political narratives. (I see the Karnataka government’s plan to ensure reservations for Muslims in government contracts as part of the problem).
In the Waqf case, the Supreme Court’s verdict may be strong (as witnessed in the quick backtracking on vital points by the government lawyer), but vote bank politics runs on the fuel of imagery and aggressive propaganda. What the top court can do is to assert its authority and inform the better-educated sections of society to bring some social stability and credibility in a noisy democracy increasingly populated by narrow-minded propagandists.
The case concerning Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi is more intriguing. The governor was sitting on a series of Bills passed by the state legislative Assembly or withholding consent for them, and stonewalled legislation for years using a loophole in the Constitution that does not define time-frames for the enactment of a law, even as it offers no powers to the governor to reject it.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan laid down clear time-frames for approval of
bills and set a precedent for all states in similar wrangles with their respective governors, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution that enables the court to be a custodian of “complete justice.”
Here is where the Supreme Court is facing a fresh controversy as it stands accused of overreach, with strong indications that the Modi government may file a review petition on the issue.
But in my opinion, what the judges have done is a case of using the Supreme Court’s residual powers (not overreach) because in any doubt regarding constitutional powers, the top court is the final authority to decide on grey areas and does so with a clear perspective.
I call this constitutional action replay – invoking my favourite cricket metaphor. Like a run-out appeal in cricket, if the
camera itself is unable to clarify matters, the umpire stands supreme. So does the judge.
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, evidently speaking on behalf of the ruling party, addressing Rajya Sabha interns, took a swipe at the judiciary for setting a timeline to take decisions on Bills – with the Tamil Nadu case in mind. He described the President as a “very elevated position” and said judges seemed to be taking executive decisions without accountability.
The accountability of the judiciary is an issue worth debating separately, but there is no doubt in my mind that the “very elevated position” of the President also happens to be of the person who is often described as “The First Citizen” of India.
The President is historically a creature of the legislative majority and is also bound by the advice of the Union Council of Ministers. To liken a president to an “elevated” monarch is a misinterpretation of the constitution, whose preamble begins with “We, the People of India…”
Since Bills passed by legislatures carry an electoral mandate, as long as they don’t violate the Constitution, even the President is bound by the Constitution finally administered by the Supreme Court. A technical reference to the office of the President without understanding its democratic context only obfuscates the issue.
Dhankhar’s words only put pressure on the judiciary and what its role is in a constitutional democracy. The Supreme Court is evidently under stress – and it is for citizens and the legal community to wake up, become more constitutionally literate and speak out on the nuances because we seem to be in danger of frequently facing monarchical interpretations of a democratic republic.
(The writer is a senior journalist and commentator who has worked for Reuters, The Economic Times, Business Standard, and Hindustan Times. He posts on X as @madversity. Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
