9 Questions That Demand Answers

What happens when the highest court in the land is accused of fueling religious discord? When allegations arise that unaddressed grievances and selective judgments deepen communal fault lines, should not the nation demand clarity? BJP MP Dr. Nishikant Dubey’s recent claim that the Supreme Court is responsible for inciting religious violence triggered widespread controversy. But it took Anand Ranganathan — a respected scientist and public intellectual — to step forward with a bold nine-point interrogation challenging the court’s impartiality. These questions deserve a national spotlight.

1.    Kashmir Petitions: A Tale of Two Timelines

The Supreme Court expedited petitions against the removal of Article 370. Yet it dismissed pleas relating to the forced expulsion and atrocities against Kashmiri Hindus in the 1990s as too old. Does this not suggest a troubling double standard? Does the court’s choice to address some injustices but ignore others risk deepening Hindu resentment?

2.    Waqf Board Silence: A Mirror of Bias?

For decades, the Waqf Board allegedly seized two million Hindu properties, evaded taxes, and enforced informal courts. Despite repeated calls for reform, the judiciary remained silent until recently. Why was state intervention only deemed necessary now? If Hindu properties could be appropriated with impunity, what does that say about judicial fairness?

3.    Temple Funds Misused: Privilege with Constraints?

Government control over Hindu temple revenues allegedly enables funding for madrassas, Haj pilgrimages, iftar feasts, and Waqf administrations. Meanwhile, Hindu religious affairs face unmatched scrutiny. Is this balanced oversight or institutional bias? Does the disparity in treatment of religious institutions risk inflaming Hindu sentiment?

4.    Educational Inequality: A Question of Conversion

Under the Right to Education Act, 25 percent of seats in Hindu schools are reserved for minority students—an obligation not reciprocated for Christian and Muslim institutions. As a result, some Hindu schools shut down, and children now study under different faiths. Does this compromise cultural roots? Could such policy tilt foster religious conversions as a systemic outcome?

5.    Free Speech: Scale of Application

When Hindu voices are labelled as hate speech, how does the court differentiate between legitimate concern and inflammatory rhetoric? When a political leader referred to Sanatana Dharma as a disease, no action followed. Does this inconsistent approach undermine freedom of speech? Does it signal a double standard in adjudicating religious commentary?

6.    Ritual Restrictions: Boundary of Neutrality

Animal sacrifice on Dussehra, height limits during Janmashtami celebrations, and bans on fireworks during Diwali have all drawn legal scrutiny. Yet Eid and Christmas observances proceed unhindered. Does the court envision a level playing field when ceremonies tied to one faith are penalized and those tied to another are shielded?

7.    Places of Worship Act: Historical Redress Denied

The 1991 Act freezes the status of religious sites as of Independence Day 1947, preventing reconstruction of temples converted centuries ago. While the Ram Mandir issue was resolved after decades of litigation, many historic temple claims remain blocked. Does the law perpetuate historical injustice? Does equality before the law supersede historical memory or silence it?

8.    Religious Custom Controversy: Who Sets the Terms?

The Supreme Court challenged Hindu traditions at Sabarimala but did not probe entry restrictions in mosques or churches. Why does one set of customs invite judicial review while another remains untouched? Does selective intervention in religious practice betray bias?

9.    Judicial Restraint: Protests and Public Order

Shaheen Bagh protests during the anti‑CAA movement blocked roads for months without legal challenge—even when similar disruptions in other contexts might have been restrained. Does this inaction undermine the rule of law? Is selective enforcement not itself a provocation?

At its heart, this debate is about trust. Can the court restore faith when controversies swirl around its selective activism? Do these nine probing questions reveal institutional gaps in fairness and religious equity? Or do they unfairly paint the judiciary as complicit?

To remain sturdy, the judiciary must answer tough questions and demonstrate neutrality. The nation deserves no less.

Final Questions for the Supreme Court & Beyond

Is justice being meted out impartially or filtered through political lenses? Can the Court rebuild its credibility by addressing these difficult truths? And if it cannot, then who will?