The Supreme Court which is ever ready to sit in judgement to decide whether Hindu practices, traditions and shlokas are in confirmation with the Constitution of India or not, today rebuked Waseem Rizwi and dismissed his petition to scrap 26 verses of the Quran by calling it “absolutely frivolous” with a punitive fine of Rs.50,000/-.

The above treatment of Waseem Rizvi’s case seems much like a Ghazi Firman which declares questioning Quran should be punished with death. While for the Supreme Court, deciding how much water can be poured on the Jyotirlinga for Jal Abhishek at Mahakal Temple in Ujjain or even forming a Constitution Bench to decide whether “Astoma Sadgamaya” is a “communal” prayer is fair game!

The Supreme Court forcefully wants Hindu women and men to give up their traditional custom of regulating entry of women in the Sabarimala Aiyyappan temple under the guise of enforcing fundamental right to dignity of women. The age regulation at Sabarimala Aiyappan Temple by the way is based on scientific reasons which the Supreme Court Judges blinded with Macaulayan education and westernisation are not able to appreciate.

The same Supreme Court is sitting on a petition since 2017 to outlaw Female Genital Mutilation of children as young as seven years, a common practice among Dawoodi Bohra Muslims in India, which is by the way banned by the United Nations. Selective appropriation of UN’s humanitarian laws eh? Perhaps, instead of the Bohra Muslims if a section of Hindus had indulged in the barbaric practice, the Supreme Court of India would have outlawed it decades ago!

The Supreme Court had even refused to concern itself with banning highly demeaning practices of polygamy, Halala and all forms of unilateral divorce or ‘Talak’ by Muslim husband prevalent among Muslims in India and limited itself only with banning ‘Triple Talak’ in the Shayara Bano case. In fact when the then AG, Mukul Rohtagi argued for the banning of polygamy, Halala and all forms of unilateral Talak , as they are in gross violation of basic human rights, right to equality and right to dignity, a Supreme Court Judge, who had ruled in favour of breaking the ancient tradition at Sabarimala, remarked that the AG was not leaving the Muslim community with any minority rights!

So, it seems that it is all right to violate basic human rights of women, if the violators are Muslims! The same controversial Judge, admitted a preposterous petition for banning from Kendriya Vidyalaya Schools the Sanskrit prayer, ‘Astoma Sadgamaya, Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya, Mrutyorma Amritamgamaya, Om Shanti, Shanti Shantihi’, which roughly translates to ‘ Lead me to truth from ignorance, lead me to light from darkness, lead me to immortality from death, Peace! Peace! Peace!’ The petitioner had ridiculously claimed that singing of this prayer creates obstacles in development of scientific temperament and violates the rights of minorities, atheists, agnostics, etc. as the prayer is based on Hinduism. 

Absurdly, instead of dismissing the petition, the aforementioned Honourable Judge admitted the case and has now referred it to a Constitutional Bench. During the course of arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta quipped, My Lord do not admit this petition as you are sitting beneath the motto of Supreme Court Sanskrit shloka borrowed from Mahabarata – ‘Yatho Dharmastato Jaya’, meaning ‘where there is Justice (Dharma), there is victory!’

The Supreme Court has, barring the landmark Chidambaram temple judgement, always aided and abetted the government to singularly take over Hindu places of worship and religious establishments under the spurious differentiation between “secular” and “religious” functions of Hindu Temples and religious establishments for perpetually usurping fundamental rights of Hindus to manage their religious establishments.

Both the Supreme Court and Government assiduously stays away from interfering in management of Churches or Mosques even when there are serious complaints of mismanagement. Why does a secular state and secular judiciary interfere or try to ‘secularise’ only Hinduism and Hindu religious establishments?

In the present case filed by Waseem Rizwi the Supreme Court, which is so studiously looking into the meaning of “Astoma Sadgamaya…” did not even bother to look into the evidently controversial 26 verses of Quran, which openly refers derogatively to all non-believers of Islam as Kafirs and exhorts all believers to offer the Kafirs two choices of accepting Islam or face death by the sword.

These controversial verses have been historically an inspiration for all Islamist invaders in India since 632 AD which resulted in demolition of thousands of ancient holy temples and massacre of Hindus for refusing to convert.

These controversial verses are being taught to young impressionable Muslim children in madrasas by radical clerics sowing the seeds of violence and terrorism. No wonder India and whole world is reeling under the terror unleashed by Islamist jihadists for converting the whole world into an Islamic Caliphate.

Are the Supreme Court Judges afraid that they would receive the same death threats by Islamist fundamentalists as Waseem Rizwi if they scientifically study these controversial verses of Quran and its harmful effect on society? Is it relatively much easier to sit in judgement of a truly enlightening Sanskrit shloka, “Astoma Sadgamya” to examine its ‘communal’ meaning as Hindus do not call for beheading nor give death threats?

Has not the Supreme Court by summarily dismissing Rizwi’s petition and punishing him with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, endorsing the Islamist fundamentalists who insist that critical appraisal of Quran or Mohammed should be punished with death?

Does Rizvi not have a right to petition the Supreme Court for a dispassionate objective examination of the 26 controversial verses of Quran to analyse whether they are inconsistent with right to life, profess and practice any faith guaranteed in the Constitution of India?

Would this legal development further endanger Rizwi’s life who faces death threats and beheading calls from prominent Muslims in India for daring to question Quran?

By the way for the Hinduphobic intelligentsia in this country, it is all right for a Mufti to become a Chief Minister, it is also very secular for a Catholic Pope to be head of a State, and very importantly, very kosher for a Parsi priest to be a Supreme Court Judge but very sacrilegious for a Hindu Yogi to be a Chief Minister of a state!

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.