Sharp political backlash follows apex court’s rulings limiting governor powers, questioning controversial Waqf law
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Credit: Supreme Court of India image via srcoll
The Supreme Court of India is facing an unprecedented backlash from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ecosystem following two recent interventions — one curbing the powers of state governors and another scrutinising the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2024.
The attacks escalated after a series of judicial actions that did not align with the Centre’s political expectations. On April 8, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan issued a landmark judgment directing governors to act within timelines on bills — a move seen as curtailing the use of Raj Bhavans to block legislative work in Opposition-ruled states. Just days later, on April 16, a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna indicated its intent to potentially stay parts of the Waqf (Amendment) Act — particularly provisions allowing non-Muslims on waqf boards.
Political Shock and Reaction
The court’s intervention in both matters triggered an explosive response from BJP leaders and its social media supporters. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar denounced the governor verdict as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces.” BJP MP Nishikant Dubey went further, accusing the Chief Justice of “inciting religious wars,” particularly in the context of the Waqf hearings. Social media platforms exploded with vitriolic abuse targeting the judiciary, including slurs like “Supreme Kotha” (Supreme brothel).
Legal experts view the backlash as a sign of the executive’s growing intolerance towards constitutional checks. “The judiciary has merely performed its duty,” said Supreme Court lawyer Ashish Goel. “But this judgment on governors and the Waqf Act embarrassed the BJP, which sees the Act as a flagship project.”
Waqf Act and BJP’s Political Calculus
The Waqf (Amendment) Act has proven especially sensitive. Passed during late-night sessions in Parliament, it reflects the government’s ideological messaging. That the Supreme Court questioned its constitutional validity so soon after its passage was viewed as a political affront.
“The trigger point is clearly the Waqf Act,” said Paras Nath Singh, Advocate-on-Record at the apex court. “It directly intersects with the current government’s politics.” Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran added, “It was a blow to their image of strength. They didn’t anticipate resistance at this level.”
Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had earlier expressed confidence that the court wouldn’t intervene, but the unfolding hearings have upended those assumptions.
A Shift in Judicial Tone?
Observers say the recent assertiveness isn’t about a “sudden awakening” in the judiciary, but rather a response to evolving political dynamics — notably, the transition from a majority BJP government to a coalition one post-2024 elections.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan remarked that the Modi government had enjoyed broad alignment with the judiciary during its earlier terms. “Now that the court is pushing back, the government sees it as betrayal,” he said. “They want a ‘committed judiciary’, and they’re not getting it.”
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s conservative and low-profile style has caught many by surprise. “He’s not a flamboyant figure like some of his predecessors,” said Advocate Prakhar Dixit. “But he’s sending clear signals by standing firm on constitutional principles.”
Other judges appear to be following Khanna’s lead. Recent decisions by Justices Pardiwala and BR Gavai — including stays on extrajudicial demolitions — are seen as part of this new judicial tone under Khanna’s leadership.
BJP’s Calculated Distancing
Even as BJP leaders lashed out, party president J.P. Nadda issued a statement disavowing the extreme remarks. But legal analysts say this is more about plausible deniability than genuine moderation.
“It gives them cover,” said Goel. “Nadda can claim the party respects the judiciary while letting others do the dirty work.” Ramachandran warned that while criticism of the judiciary is normal in a democracy, the tone of recent attacks is “deeply concerning and undignified.”
Some statements may even amount to contempt of court. “A party cannot publicly sponsor a contemptuous statement,” said Advocate Amit Pai, pointing to Dubey’s comment targeting the Chief Justice.
Padmanabhan echoed the concern. “For a Vice President to call a Supreme Court verdict a ‘nuclear missile’ is highly inappropriate. It undermines constitutional decorum.”
The Trending People’s Final Thoughts
The BJP’s sharp reaction to recent Supreme Court rulings reflects a deeper discomfort with judicial independence — especially as the party navigates a post-majority political reality. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s quiet but firm leadership has surprised many, bringing back constitutional checks that had long been subdued. Whether this judicial assertiveness continues — and whether the political establishment learns to accept it — may well define India’s institutional trajectory in the years to come.