The Congress on Thursday lauded the Supreme Court’s observations regarding the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. Congress General Secretary KC Venugopal stated that the Court’s remarks have highlighted significant concerns raised by opposition parties both within and outside the Parliament.

In a post on X, Venugopal emphasised that the observations have opened the floor for a much-needed debate regarding the contentious legislation, which he argued was rushed through without adequately addressing the legitimate issues raised during the Joint Parliamentary Committee deliberations and subsequent discussions in Parliament.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, assured that no appointments would be made to waqf bodies until the next court date and affirmed that the character of waqf properties would remain unchanged. This revelation has prompted strong reactions from various political leaders.

“The Court’s pointed remarks raise serious constitutional questions about the Act’s infringement on fundamental rights and expose its divisive implications,” Venugopal added. “The fight to defend the idea of India — inclusive, plural, and just — will continue, in the courts and with the people.”

At a press conference following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Congress leader Abhishek Singhvi criticised the Amendment Act, declaring it “retaliation in the guise of reform.” He condemned the legislation as a veiled attempt to control religious autonomy, suggesting that it redefines community rights under bureaucratic oversight.

“The Waqf Amendment Act is not an exercise in efficiency as it pretends to be. It is an exercise in erasure,” Singhvi asserted, highlighting that the language used in the Act disguises a broader ambition for governmental control over religious matters.

Asaduddin Owaisi, chief of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen (AIMIM), stated that the legal battle against the Waqf Amendment Act would persist. “The Supreme Court has issued a stay on the deletion of waqf by users and halted the formation of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards,” he noted. Owaisi criticised the Act as unconstitutional, reiterating his dissent during the parliamentary discussions on the bill.

In response to inquiries about whether the Supreme Court’s order provided relief, Owaisi cautioned against a simplistic interpretation, emphasising that under the Act, a Muslim must have been practising for five years to donate property as waqf.

The Supreme Court’s three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, also documented the Centre’s assurances regarding the suspension of appointments to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards under the contested amended Sections 9 and 14 of the Waqf Act. The next hearing has been scheduled for the week commencing May 5.

Solicitor General Mehta requested an additional seven days to compile a comprehensive response that encompasses over a century of legislative history surrounding the issue and the numerous representations received concerning the 2025 Act. He argued against a stay on the Act’s provisions based on a “prima facie or tentative reading” of certain sections, urging the Court to consider the broader context.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Thursday launched a scathing attack on the judiciary, branding Article 142 of the Constitution a “nuclear missile” that threatens democratic principles, always at the judiciary’s disposal.

The remarks follow the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment, which marked a historic first by imposing a three-month deadline for the President to approve or reject Bills reserved by the Governors.

Speaking at the valedictory ceremony for the 6th batch of Rajya Sabha interns at the Vice President’s Enclave, Dhankhar expressed alarm over a recent Supreme Court ruling directing the President to act on Bills within a set timeframe, arguing it undermines the separation of powers.

The bench, led by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, ruled that delays beyond this period require justification and affirmed that the President’s actions under Article 201 are subject to judicial review. The court also advised the President to refer Bills raising constitutional questions to the judiciary and urged coordination between states and the Centre.

This ruling stemmed from a dispute in Tamil Nadu, where Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in assenting to 10 Bills was deemed “illegal” and “arbitrary” by the court, allowing the state to challenge the President’s withholding of assent.

Dhankhar, however, called the directive to the President—a figure sworn to uphold the Constitution—unacceptable. “Where are we heading? Directing the President to act within a timeframe, failing which a Bill becomes law? This allows judges to legislate, govern, and act as a super-parliament without accountability,” he said, warning of a judiciary overstepping its constitutional role under Article 145(3) to interpret the law.

Emphasising the separation of powers, Dhankhar argued that the elected Executive is answerable to Parliament and voters, unlike the judiciary. “If judges govern, who do we question? How do we hold them accountable at elections?” he asked, urging the legislature, judiciary, and executive to operate within their designated domains to safeguard democracy. “Any overreach by one into another’s sphere is a dangerous challenge,” he added.

Dhankhar also raised concerns about judicial accountability, citing a March 14-15 incident where a large cash stash was discovered at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma.

He criticised the lack of an FIR and the formation of a three-judge committee to probe the matter, questioning why the Executive’s investigative authority was bypassed. “The Constitution grants immunity from prosecution only to the President and Governors. How has another category secured such protection?” he asked.

Noting that over a month has passed since the cash haul, Dhankhar demanded transparency. “Even if it’s a can of worms or skeletons in the closet, it’s time to open the lid and let the truth out for institutional cleansing,” he said, contrasting the slow response with the swift action he believes would have followed a similar incident at his own residence.

A legal showdown between Honasa Consumer Ltd. (HCL), the parent company of Mamaearth, and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL), which owns Lakmé, reached the Delhi High Court this week, with both FMCG giants filing defamation lawsuits against each other. On Thursday, the court ordered HUL to pull its current Lakmé sunscreen advertisements, prompting the company to agree to revise its campaign by removing references to “online bestseller” and altering the depicted packaging colours.

The dispute centres on Lakmé’s recent “SPF Lie Detector Test” campaign, which HCL alleges unfairly targets its Derma Co. sunscreen by questioning the efficacy of rival products.

In the ads, HUL claims that some “online bestseller” sunscreens, marketed as SPF 50, provide protection closer to SPF 20, based on in-vivo testing data from the past decade. While no brands are explicitly named, visuals juxtaposing yellow bottles—resembling Derma Co.’s packaging—against Lakmé’s sparked Honasa’s ire.

Honasa, in its plea to the Delhi High Court, argued that HUL’s claims are misleading and disparage competitors, damaging their reputation. In retaliation, HUL filed a countersuit against Honasa in the Bombay High Court, escalating the corporate feud.

The controversy erupted when Ghazal Alagh, co-founder of Honasa, took to LinkedIn to criticise the FMCG sector’s lack of competitive drive, suggesting that legacy brands like HUL have grown complacent. Her comments were seen as a direct jab at Lakmé’s campaign, which challenges the SPF claims of newer sunscreen brands dominating online markets. “The industry needs fresh competition to shake things up,” Alagh wrote, igniting a public spat.

Lakmé’s campaign asserts that some top-selling sunscreens falsely claim in vivo testing—a method involving live organisms like humans or animals—while delivering subpar protection. In a social media statement, Lakmé doubled down, saying, “Certain online bestsellers advertise SPF 50, but their in-market samples test closer to SPF 20.”