Introduction Dr. Nishikant Dubey, a senior BJP leader, recently stirred controversy by asserting that the Supreme Court of India has been central in fanning religious discord in the country. While his party distanced itself from his remarks, a large section of Bharat’s awakened citizens echoed his sentiment. But was his observation merely political hyperbole, or is there substantial ground beneath it? Dr. Anand Ranganathan’s analytical breakdown offers an eye-opening exposé that compels every truth-seeker to question the balance and integrity of the judiciary.
1. The Betrayal of Kashmiri Hindus The Supreme Court formed a high-powered bench to examine Article 370 abrogation, but when it came to opening the genocide cases of Kashmiri Hindus from 1990, it shamefully refused, citing “too much time has elapsed.” Ironically, the same court initiated an SIT for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots – which occurred before the Kashmir exodus. This glaring inconsistency has not only hurt the sentiments of Hindus but also suggested selective empathy.
2. The Waqf Act – Legal Weaponization The Waqf Act, which has enabled the annexation of over 20 lakh acres of land by Muslim institutions, has never been challenged by the Supreme Court in 30 years. It enables the unilateral seizure of land where mosques exist. A parallel judiciary in the form of Waqf Boards was created, bypassing standard civil law. Yet, the same court is keen on adjudicating amendments that attempt to curtail this overreach. If roles were reversed and a “Sanatan Board” started claiming mosques, what would be the outcry?
3. State Control of Hindu Temples While the government generously funds Hajj subsidies, salaries for Maulvis, Madrasas, and even Christian Development Boards, Hindu temples remain shackled by state control. Over one lakh temples are under government management, their revenues used for secular purposes. The Supreme Court has refused to act on this civilizational robbery.
4. Discriminatory Implementation of RTE Act The Right to Education Act, backed by the 93rd Amendment, only applies to Hindu-run schools, forcing them to reserve 25% seats for EWS students. Minority-run institutions are exempt. This asymmetric burden has bankrupted countless Hindu schools and led to large-scale religious conversions.
5. Free Speech and Selective Outrage When Udhayanidhi Stalin called for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma, the Supreme Court remained silent, ignoring its own guidelines. Yet, it came down heavily on Nupur Sharma for quoting Islamic scripture. This selective activism reeks of ideological bias.
6. Ritual Discrimination Against Hindus The Court banned centuries-old Hindu animal sacrifice rituals while ignoring halal practices. It imposed height restrictions on Janmashtami pyramids but remains silent on violent Moharram processions. Firecrackers during Diwali are curbed, but New Year and Christmas celebrations go unchecked. Environmentalism is only selectively applied.
7. Places of Worship Act – Legalizing Injustice By upholding the 1991 Act, the Supreme Court essentially froze historical injustices. All religious sites must remain as they were in 1947 – a date arbitrarily chosen. Except for Ram Mandir, no site can be reclaimed. This law is blatantly anti-Hindu and has no parallel in any democracy.
8. The Sabarimala Judgment – Misunderstanding Traditions Sabarimala’s ban on menstruating women is based on the deity’s celibate vow. This was misinterpreted as discrimination, while real gender exclusions in Islam and Christianity are never questioned. The Supreme Court overturned a centuries-old tradition without understanding its spiritual context.
9. Shaheen Bagh Protests and Judicial Hypocrisy The Supreme Court called the Shaheen Bagh blockade illegal but bizarrely suggested mediation. No such grace was offered to Sabarimala protesters or other Hindu causes. The double standard is stark and offensive.
Conclusion: Dr. Nishikant Dubey’s Statement Wasn’t Controversial—It Was Courageous Justice must be blind—but not selectively. The Supreme Court’s repeated overlooking of Hindu grievances and its interference in Hindu traditions while shielding others sets a dangerous precedent. Dr. Dubey merely voiced what millions feel: if this judicial bias continues, it’s not justice—it’s institutional injustice masquerading in robes.
The judiciary must introspect. As Dr. Ranganathan aptly concluded: “My Lords, you should be men, not gods. You should hold a pen, not a bolt of lightning.”
Jai Sanatan! Vande Mataram! Written by Guruji Sunil Chaudhary, Founder – Career Building School & JustBaazaar
