Today, On 15th September, Supreme Court imposes partial stay on the Waqf Amendment Act. The 5-year Islam practice clause is put on hold, while the registration requirement remains unaffected, affecting three key provisions under the 2025 amendment
Today, On 15th September, The Supreme Court, in an interim order by CJI BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, said no case was made to stay the entire Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, but stayed two provisions pending resolution of validity challenges.
CJI B R Gavai said he faced criticism from his own community for his ruling allowing sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, but stressed he writes judgments by law and conscience. He also defended excluding the creamy layer and spoke on due process in demolition cases.
The Centre told the Supreme Court that fixing timelines for President and Governors to act on Bills would upset the constitutional balance, stressing such powers are “non-justiciable.” SG Tushar Mehta warned that judicial overreach could trigger “constitutional disorder.”
The Centre has warned the Supreme Court that fixing a timeline for Governors may create “constitutional chaos,” stressing that even under Article 142, the Court cannot amend or override the original intent of the Constitution makers.
Today, On 8th August, in Banke Bihari Temple Case, The Supreme Court said it “will modify the part of the judgment which affects you” and also “form a committee headed by HC judge,” while granting liberty to challenge the affected portion.
The Allahabad High Court deferred the Bankey Bihari temple case to August 26 after being told the Trust Ordinance is under challenge in the Supreme Court. In the Gyanvapi ASI survey matter, hearing is on September 23.
Today, On 5th August, The Supreme Court asked both parties to suggest the name of a former High Court judge to head a temporary committee for managing Banke Bihari Temple’s administration until the legal dispute over the ordinance is resolved.
Today, On 4th August, In the Banke Bihari Temple case, the Supreme Court criticised the UP government for acting without hearing all sides, stating, “A public temple can’t be run without hearing affected parties,” and proposed recalling the order allowing fund use.
