Kapil Sibal: The Anti-Hindu Legal Crusader – From Ram Mandir to Delhi Riots, Waqf, and More, How the Lawyer-Politician Opposes Hindu and National Interests
- MGMMTeam
- Apr 10
- 18 min read
The historic Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 has been passed by both houses of Parliament and has received the assent of President Draupadi Murmu. The new law aims to reform the management of Waqf properties in India and address the widespread corruption within Waqf Boards, which have been dominated by a privileged Muslim elite. Additionally, the legislation removes several unwarranted powers granted to Waqf Boards under the Waqf Act of 1995, introduced by the Congress government.
As the Waqf Act 2025 curtails the unchecked powers of these Boards, Islamists, opposition parties, and the broader Islamo-leftist network have condemned the legislation, labeling it an ‘assault’ on Muslim religious rights and freedoms.
Section 40 of the Waqf Act 1995: How Congress Enabled Arbitrary Land Claims by Waqf Boards to Appease the Muslim Vote Bank
The Waqf Act of 1995, introduced by the Congress government at the time, included several provisions that allowed for unchecked misuse of authority and property encroachment within the Muslim community. One such provision, found under Section 40 of the legislation, granted the Waqf Board the power to unilaterally determine whether a property is classified as 'Waqf Property' based on the information it gathered.
“The Board may itself collect information regarding any property which it has reason to believe to be waqf property and if any question arises whether a particular property is waqf property or not or whether a waqf is a Sunni waqf or a Shia waqf, it may, after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, decide the question,” the first sub-section of the provision establishes the rule.
The Waqf Board's decision on whether a property is classified as Waqf was final, unless altered or revoked by a tribunal. Under Section 40 of the Waqf Act of 1995, the Waqf Board was authorized to attach properties of trusts and societies following a preliminary inquiry. It also had the power to mandate that these trusts and societies register with the Board or justify their failure to do so.
This provision granted the Waqf Board excessive authority, allowing it to arbitrarily declare any property as Waqf, thereby bypassing laws such as the Trust Act of 1882 and the Societies Registration Act of 1860. The Waqf Board's unchecked powers meant that parties who were wronged could only challenge the Board's claim through a Waqf Tribunal, where outcomes were often skewed in the Board’s favor, without recourse to a Civil Court. As a result, the Waqf Board became one of the largest landowners in India.
The Waqf Boards became notorious for corruption, illegal land seizures, encroachments, and arbitrary claims over properties belonging to Hindus, including homes, land, temples, villages, Gurudwaras, and churches. Over time, they were transformed into an overwhelming force by the Congress party, despite India’s secular constitution. However, the Modi government has finally rectified this situation by repealing Section 40 through the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, also known as the UMEED Act (Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development).
Even before the Waqf Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha, so-called 'secular' political parties, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Islamists, and their supporters began threatening unrest, warning of protests. Similar to the anti-CAA protests and the 2020 anti-Hindu Delhi Riots, disinformation and fearmongering have taken center stage, with inflammatory statements condemning the Waqf Act 2025 as 'unconstitutional'. Just like during the anti-CAA protests, what started as peaceful demonstrations quickly escalated into violence, fueled by Congress leader Sonia Gandhi’s “Aar ya paar ki ladai” rhetoric, resulting in widespread unrest in Delhi, West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh.
A similar pattern is unfolding now. Islamists, following the example of the anti-CAA protests, have targeted railways in West Bengal to protest a legislation that benefits the poor while ending privileges for the Muslim elite.
As the Citizenship Amendment Act was challenged in the Supreme Court, the Waqf Amendment Act is also facing multiple petitions questioning its constitutional validity.
The anti-CAA and anti-Waqf Act movements share common elements: charged political rhetoric, fearmongering, disinformation, and petitions in the Supreme Court arguing the same points of 'assault on the constitution,' 'minorities are in danger,' and 'democracy is at risk.' One constant figure in both movements is Kapil Sibal, a senior Supreme Court lawyer known for advocating causes that often oppose the interests of Hindus and India.
Kapil Sibal: A Legal Crusader Criticized for Anti-Hindu Stance
Kapil Sibal, a distinguished lawyer with decades of experience, has played a significant role in several landmark cases that have sparked widespread public debate, particularly those involving Hindu interests.
One of Sibal’s most contentious legal involvements was in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Title Dispute. The former Congress leader and UPA Minister represented the Sunni Waqf Board, opposing the construction of a grand Ram Mandir at the disputed site in Ayodhya. He also employed delay tactics, urging the Supreme Court to postpone its decision on the case until after the 2019 general elections, fearing that a ruling in favor of the Hindu side would benefit the BJP. Despite the political overtones of the issue, the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling favored the construction of the Ram Mandir at the disputed site, delivering a major blow to Sibal and the Sunni Waqf Board.
In January 2024, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other “Yajmans” conducted the Pran Pratishtha ceremony for Lord Ram in his newly constructed temple in Ayodhya, Sibal, still reeling from the court’s defeat, expressed his displeasure. He dismissed the consecration event as a mere "show-off," stating that Lord Ram resides in his heart and that the grand ceremony was nothing more than a display of spectacle.
Kapil Sibal Represented Shafin Jahan in the Hadiya Case, Allegedly Received Funds from PFI
Kapil Sibal’s distinguished career includes his involvement in the Shafin Jahan vs. KM Ashokan case, often referred to as the Hadiya Love Jihad case. Sibal represented Shafin Jahan, Hadiya’s husband, in the Supreme Court, challenging the Kerala High Court’s annulment of their marriage.
To recap, Akhila, a Hindu woman, converted to Islam and changed her name to Hadiya after marrying Shafin Jahan, a Muslim man. Hadiya’s father, a retired Indian Army officer, accused the marriage of being part of a “love jihad.” The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of Shafin Jahan, affirming Hadiya’s right to choose both her religion and her spouse as an adult. It was later revealed that the now-banned Islamic terrorist group Popular Front of India (PFI) had funded the case, spending Rs 99,52,324. Of this amount, Rs 93,85,000 went to four prominent lawyers—Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Indira Jaising, and Marzook Bafaki—who represented Shafin Jahan.
In 2020, the Enforcement Directorate accused PFI of receiving large sums of money to fuel anti-CAA protests across India following the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act in December 2019. Reports suggested that PFI spent around 120 crores in just one month to incite violent riots across the country. It was also alleged that Kapil Sibal, Indira Jaising, and Dushyant Dave were beneficiaries of PFI’s funds, with Sibal reportedly receiving Rs 77 lakh. Sibal later issued a ‘clarification,’ stating that the amount was his legal fee for services rendered in the Hadiya Love Jihad case.
Kapil Sibal Urges Release of PFI Member Siddique Kappan
In 2020, a habeas corpus petition was filed in the Supreme Court requesting the release of Siddique Kappan, one of four PFI members arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police for allegedly plotting to incite caste-based unrest and communal tension related to the Hathras case. Representing the Kerala Journalists' Union and Kappan, a journalist and active PFI member, Sibal petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the request was denied by the then Chief Justice SA Bobde.
The Uttar Pradesh police had detained four individuals in connection with the Hathras case: Siddique from Malappuram, Siddiqui from Nagla in Muzaffarnagar, Masood Ahmed from Jarwal in Bahraich, and Alam from the Kotwali area in Rampur.
Kapil Sibal Defends Delhi Riots Accused Umar Khalid in Supreme Court
Sibal’s obsession with defending Islamists and those threatening the rights and safety of Hindus has only intensified. The senior lawyer was reportedly involved in unsuccessful attempts at forum shopping. In February 2024, Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal allowed Umar Khalid to withdraw his bail plea. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Khalid, informed the bench that the petition was being withdrawn due to a “change in circumstances” and that a new bail application would be filed before the trial court. Additionally, Sibal withdrew a separate petition challenging the legality of specific sections of the UAPA, particularly those related to bail.
OpIndia previously pointed out that out of the 14 adjournments in 2023 and 2024, Umar Khalid himself sought 7 of these delays. These intentional delays were attributed to Khalid’s counsel, Kapil Sibal. OpIndia also highlighted how these adjournments and the subsequent withdrawal were part of a failed forum shopping attempt by Sibal. In fact, Sibal’s forum shopping efforts in the Umar Khalid case were blocked by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud himself. Our analysis of the case timeline was later confirmed by the former CJI in a post-retirement interview earlier this year.
Kapil Sibal Misleads Supreme Court: Falsely Attributes Economic Boycott Call to BJP’s Parvesh Verma, Minimizes Anti-Hindu Hate Speech by Muslims
In 2022, Kapil Sibal made false claims in the Supreme Court, alleging that BJP leader Parvesh Verma had called for a boycott of the Muslim community, even though Verma never mentioned any specific community. When Justice KM Joseph inquired if Muslims had been making hate speeches, Sibal claimed to have no knowledge of such occurrences. This was despite several incidents throughout that year where Muslims, including AIMIM leaders and individuals like Ajmer Dargah Khadim Syed Adil Chishti and Sawar Chishti, had made hate-filled speeches calling for the economic boycott of Hindus, among other actions.
Kapil Sibal’s False Claims in Rajya Sabha: Misquoting Dr Ambedkar and Distorting Savarkar’s Views on Two-Nation Theory
In 2019, during a debate on the Citizenship Amendment Bill in the Rajya Sabha, former Congress MP Kapil Sibal stated that the controversial two-nation theory, which laid the foundation for the violent partition of India and the establishment of Pakistan as a state that sponsors Islamic terrorism, was propagated by Veer Savarkar, and B.R. Ambedkar also agreed with this view.
“The two-nation theory was not our theory, you are going to fulfill it today with the passing of this bill, if it is passed. Savarkar said, “There are two antagonist nations living side by side in India. Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already wedded into a harmonious nation, or it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These are well-meaning but unthinkable friends who take their dreams for realities, that is why they are impatient of communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations”. The two-nation theory was perpetuated by Savarkar,” Sibal added that Dr. Ambedkar had also endorsed this view.
Sibal tried to imply that figures like Veer Savarkar, whom he labeled as 'Hindu hardliners,' were somehow responsible for the partition of India, but OpIndia refuted his claims. Sibal had distorted Ambedkar’s words from his book Pakistan or Partition of India. Contrary to Sibal’s statement, Savarkar did not support the partition of India, although he did recognize the existence of distinct Hindu and Muslim nations within India.
Ambedkar summarized Savarkar's views by writing, “…although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation.”
Kapil Sibal, the 2G Spectrum Scam, and the Controversial ‘Zero-Loss’ Theory
Kapil Sibal, in addition to his anti-Hindu stance, has also taken positions that seem contrary to India’s best interests. As Telecom Minister, he introduced the “zero loss theory” in 2011 during the 2G Spectrum scam. His claim suggested that the Indian government didn’t incur any financial loss from the undervalued allocation of 2G spectrum licenses in 2008 under his predecessor, A Raja, which sparked widespread outrage. The 2G spectrum was distributed on a first-come-first-served basis, bypassing a competitive auction process.
This angered many, especially after the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report highlighted a presumed loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to the national treasury due to irregularities in the spectrum sales. In 2017, when the Supreme Court acquitted all the accused, including Kanimozhi and A Raja, Sibal claimed to be “vindicated.” However, the special CBI court had actually acquitted them due to insufficient evidence and the prosecution’s failure to prove corruption. In his defense of the 2G spectrum case, Sibal questioned the CAG’s credibility, dismissing its findings as inconsequential, further revealing that political arrogance overshadowed economic reality during the UPA era.
It’s hard to imagine that a scam ranked by Time magazine as the world’s second-largest abuse of power was reduced to just a ‘zero loss’ event among the many scandals of the UPA era.
Kapil Sibal and Rajya Sabha MPs File Impeachment Motion Against Allahabad HC Judge Over 'Kathmulla' Remark on Islamic Extremists
In India's flawed political discourse, it is deemed acceptable to label a democratically elected government as 'fascist' and the Prime Minister as a 'dictator.' However, when a sitting High Court judge refers to Islamic extremists as "Kathmulla," it is deemed anti-Muslim hate speech.
In December 2024, a motion to remove Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav from office was presented to the Rajya Sabha Secretary-General, following his controversial remarks at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. The motion was submitted by a delegation led by Kapil Sibal, with other members including Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, P. Wilson, John Brittas, KTS Tulsi, Manoj Kumar Jha, and Saket Gokhale.
“But these kathmullah… this may not be the right word… but I won’t hesitate to say it because they are harmful to the country…they are detrimental, against the nation, and people who incite the public. They are the kind of people who do not want the country to progress, and we need to be cautious of them),” the judge had stated during the event.
The impeachment motion claims that Justice Yadav violated “the secular ethos of the constitution and the judge’s oath of office.” Four days after his statement, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court revised Justice Shekhar Yadav's judicial roster, with the changes coming into effect on December 16. The Supreme Court Collegium also summoned him to clarify his stance on the issue after the apex court took note of his remarks on December 10. In January 2025, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the PIL requesting Justice Yadav’s impeachment.
Kolkata RG Kar Medical College Rape and Murder: Kapil Sibal Defends TMC Govt’s Insensitivity, Puts Lawyers' Reputation Over Victim’s Justice
In September 2024, Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, opposed the live streaming of the Supreme Court proceedings in the brutal rape and murder case at RG Kar Hospital. Sibal argued that broadcasting the case would ruin the reputation he had built over five decades. He appealed to the Supreme Court to halt the live feed, stating it had damaged the reputation of lawyers and led to threats against them. In response, the bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud stressed the importance of public interest and the court’s commitment to transparency, rejecting Sibal's request to stop the live streaming.
Sibal faced criticism for defending the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government, despite allegations of delayed FIR filing and mishandling by state authorities. The court itself challenged Sibal’s claim that the FIR had been filed promptly. His insensitivity was further highlighted when he blamed the victim’s parents for the delay in filing the FIR.
Additionally, Sibal was accused of laughing in the courtroom during the proceedings, despite doctors in West Bengal protesting the brutality the victim had suffered and the alleged negligence of state authorities. Sibal, however, denied the accusation.
Kapil Sibal Defends Pro-Pakistan Leader in Supreme Court, Seeks ‘Referendum’ in Kashmir Over Article 370 Abrogation
Kapil Sibal expressed concerns about representing an individual who openly professed admiration for Pakistan, all in the name of upholding ‘secularism’ and ‘democratic values.’
In September 2023, the Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution. One of the petitioners was Mohammad Akbar Lone, a National Conference (NC) leader who had raised pro-Pakistan slogans in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in 2018. Sibal was the lawyer representing Lone in the case. At that time, Chief Justice Chandrachud had reprimanded Sibal for Lone's pro-Pakistani remarks.
Rather than condemning Lone's pro-Pakistan stance, Sibal argued that raising the issue of his client’s ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ slogans would only attract unnecessary media attention.
Sibal also represented other petitioners contesting the constitutional validity of the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A. He strongly opposed the removal of these provisions, which had granted Jammu and Kashmir special status. Despite these provisions allowing for separate laws, restrictions on non-residents settling or owning property, and fueling Jihadist separatism, which hindered full integration of J&K into India, Sibal stood firm in his opposition. These policies contributed to decades of unrest, terrorism, and the persecution of Kashmiri Hindus. However, reports from OpIndia have highlighted that Jammu and Kashmir has experienced significant development and economic growth after the revocation of Article 370.
It’s worth remembering that Kapil Sibal, during his argument against the abrogation of Article 370, advocated for a Brexit-style referendum in Kashmir. Ultimately, this was a political decision taken in the context of the situation then prevailing, right? And the complete abrogation of Article 370 must also be a political decision. Your Lordships will remember in Brexit what happened, there was no constitutional provision seeking a referendum. But when you want to sever a relationship which has been entered into, you must ultimately seek the opinion of the people. Because people are central to this decision,” remarked Sibal, though Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud promptly dismissed his argument.
Kapil Sibal and the Rafale Deal Controversy
In 2018, Kapil Sibal represented Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, and Prashant Bhushan in filing a joint petition challenging the Modi government's procurement of Rafale fighter jets from France. Sibal raised concerns over the deal's transparency and pricing. The case became a major political issue leading up to the 2019 general elections, with Congress and other opposition parties using the ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’ slogan against PM Modi.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no irregularities in the deal. However, as reported by OpIndia, after anticipating a favorable report for the government on the Rafale deal from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the Congress party, particularly Kapil Sibal, unexpectedly questioned the impartiality of Rajiv Meherishi, the CAG.
Kapil Sibal’s Misguided Support for Gangster-Turned-Politician Atiq Ahmed’s Criminal Son
In 2023, just days after Asad Ahmed was killed in a police encounter, former Congress leader Kapil Sibal spoke out in defense of the gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed’s son. Sibal appeared to minimize the threat that Asad Ahmed posed to the police. “A young boy (Asad), whose age is 19, how can he threaten the security of the country? If you want to catch him, then hit him on his leg or prosecute him. Why do you want to kill him?” Kabil Sibal inquired.
While such a statement might be expected from an Islamist leader or a politician known for appeasing Muslims, it was shocking to hear it from a seasoned lawyer like Sibal, especially given that Asad was the primary accused in the murder of lawyer Umesh Pal, who was shot dead in broad daylight on February 24, 2023. Asad was also planning to orchestrate the breakout of his father, Atiq Ahmed, from police custody and launch an attack on a police convoy. Despite being fully aware of these facts, Kapil Sibal chose to overlook them, expressing sorrow for Asad Ahmed’s death and suggesting that he was not a security threat. This perspective seemed even more alarming when one considers that the Pakistani jihadis behind the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks were also around 20-21 years old at the time. By Sibal's logic, even they might not have been considered a threat to national security.
Kapil Sibal's Controversial Claim: Assam Was Once Part of Myanmar
In 2023, Kapil Sibal ignited controversy by asserting that Assam was originally part of Myanmar. He made these remarks on September 7, 2023, during a Supreme Court hearing where he was opposing petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. The petitions are being heard by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, questioning the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 sets a unique cut-off date for identifying illegal immigrants in Assam. According to this provision, foreigners who entered Assam on or before March 25, 1971, are eligible for Indian citizenship, in contrast to the rest of the country, where the cut-off date is July 19, 1949. While defending his stance against the petitions, Sibal, representing Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and AAMSU, argued that Assam's history is complex, as it was once part of Myanmar before being handed over to the British. He further claimed that migration to Assam cannot be precisely tracked, stating that "no migration can ever be mapped."
Kapil Sibal Warns of Potential Provocation if Hindu Festivals Are Held on Waqf Land While Representing Karnataka Waqf Board
In August 2022, the Supreme Court rejected a request to hold Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations at the contested Idgah Maidan in Bengaluru. The court imposed a status quo on the Maidan following a petition from the Karnataka Waqf Board, stating, “No pooja, no namaaz as of now.” The Idgah Maidan had become a point of contention, with both the Karnataka Waqf Board and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike claiming ownership of the land.
While the Karnataka High Court had allowed the state government to consider a request for a limited-time Ganesh Chaturthi celebration on Idgah Maidan in Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, the state Waqf Board appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that no religious celebrations had taken place there for the past 200 years. Kapil Sibal, representing the Waqf Board, argued that the Karnataka High Court's order contradicted a 1964 Supreme Court decision. Sibal posed a rhetorical question to the judges: If religious festivals of other faiths were allowed on Waqf-owned land, where only Islamic festivals are traditionally observed, "Your Lordships know what would happen."
He further argued that the High Court's decision could alter the "character of the maidan" and potentially disrupt communal harmony. Sibal, who often presented himself as a champion of 'Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb' and secularism, notably advocated for Muslim control over the disputed land, aiming to prevent Hindus from celebrating their festival at Idgah Maidan.
Kapil Sibal to Represent Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind in Supreme Court Challenge to Waqf Amendment Act (UMEED Act)
Kapil Sibal continues his controversial legacy of supporting causes that either favor Islamist interests or oppose those of Hindus. He is set to represent Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind in the Supreme Court in a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the recently passed Waqf Act (UMEED Act), which has been cleared by both houses of Parliament and assented to by the President of India. Sibal was recently criticized for attempting to expedite the hearing of this case, with Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna advising him and advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi to follow proper procedures.
Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, one of the largest and most influential Islamic organizations, has provided legal aid to Muslims accused of terrorism for over a decade. The organization defends its actions, claiming to offer legal services to "innocent Muslims." Its legal cell, established by JUH president Maulana Arshad Madani in 2007, has represented around 700 individuals accused of terrorism. Alarmingly, Jamiat has secured the acquittal of at least 192 such accused, often due to insufficient evidence or poor police investigations, rather than proven innocence. The Jamiat has also represented Congress leader Mamman Khan, a key figure in the anti-Hindu Nuh violence case.
Jamiat has previously called for a separate law to specifically punish those inciting violence against minorities, amid alleged rising Islamophobia. From opposing the reopening of the Kashi-Mathura temple dispute cases to asserting that Muslims will only follow Shariah, Jamiat’s stance on secularism and the so-called Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb has been clear. Despite this, Kapil Sibal, as a staunch advocate of this ideal, has no qualms about defending an overtly Islamist organization and its plea against a law designed to curb corruption within Waqf Boards, address arbitrary land ownership claims on religious sites, prevent illegal encroachments of government land, and break the monopoly of a privileged few.
Triple Talaq Case: Kapil Sibal’s Defense of a Regressive Practice Targeting Muslim Women
Kapil Sibal's career as a lawyer demonstrates a pattern of advocating for causes that either support Hindu interests or reinforce Muslim dominance, often at the cost of hindering societal progress. In the Shayara Bano vs Union of India case, Sibal represented the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), where he strongly defended the continuation of the regressive and patriarchal practice of instant Triple Talaq. By doing so, Sibal prioritized Islamic orthodoxy over the pursuit of gender justice.
In 2017, OpIndia reported on six key arguments Sibal made while representing the AIMPLB before the Supreme Court. His primary argument was: “Triple talaq has been practiced for 1400 years, how can you say it is unconstitutional?” Essentially, his stance suggested that if Muslim women had been subject to arbitrary divorces, even over trivial matters like the amount of salt and spices in food, for centuries, the practice should be allowed to continue, and that the secular government should not intervene.
Another point Sibal presented to the court was, “If Hindus’ faith about Rama’s birth at Ayodhya can’t be questioned, then triple talaq, a matter of faith for Muslims shouldn’t be.” However, despite serving as the legal representative for the Sunni Waqf Board in the Ram Janmbhoomi case, he overlooked the fact that the Hindu belief regarding the birthplace of Ramlalla was challenged in court, with the Hindu side presenting historical and scriptural evidence to substantiate their claim.
Other points made by Kapil Sibal in this case included, “Shariat is personal law and not subject to fundamental rights”, “Majority community cannot make laws for the minority unless the reform comes from within the community.” Just because a certain section of people was aggrieved by their personal laws, does not warrant a case to seek reform in the area.” “Hindu laws of divorce and succession are more discriminatory than triple talaq.”
In his attempt to defend the indefensible, Sibal suggested that Sharia holds more significance than the Indian Constitution for Muslims, and that they have the freedom to accept or disregard the Constitution based on their own preferences. He argued that reforms should come from within the Muslim community rather than through parliamentary action. However, given that he himself acknowledged the practice of Triple Talaq has existed for 1400 years, the question arises: if the community hasn't introduced reform in all these centuries, how many more centuries should Muslim women have waited for change? He even minimized the widespread instances of instant triple talaq, claiming such cases did not require reform.
Fortunately, on 22nd August 2017, the Supreme Court of India made a landmark ruling declaring Talaq-e-biddat, or ‘instant triple talaq,’ unconstitutional. This ruling established that pronouncing divorce by saying (or even sending electronically) the word ‘talaq’ three times in quick succession would no longer be legally recognized. The Modi government had argued before the apex court that this practice violated the rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, and 21. In 2019, the Modi government took further action by criminalizing the practice of instant triple talaq, making it illegal for a Muslim man to divorce his wife by repeating the word ‘talaq’ three times.
Conclusion
Kapil Sibal appears to have a tendency to promote a framework that prioritizes communal privilege for Muslims over national interests. While he is free as a lawyer to represent any client, his career suggests that beyond his image as a progressive jurist, Sibal often defends Islamists who believe they are entitled to special rights and privileges simply by virtue of their religion, even if it comes at the expense of the Hindu majority and other non-Muslim communities in India.
From opposing Hindu claims in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Title Dispute case to defending regressive practices like instant Triple Talaq, advocating for the reinstatement of divisive Articles 370 and 35A, downplaying the massive 2G spectrum scam, and representing Islamists and alleged anti-Hindu rioters, Sibal's career trajectory can be seen as a continuous effort to undermine Hindu and national interests.
With his recent opposition to the Waqf Act 2025, Sibal continues to align himself with causes that bolster Muslim institutional dominance, serving the Islamist elite while sidelining the welfare of ordinary Muslims and ignoring the rights of Hindus and other religious communities harmed by arbitrary claims over their properties by Waqf Boards. While it may be unrealistic to expect Sibal to be a completely neutral lawyer given his active role in politics as a parliamentarian and former minister, he emerges as both an enabler and defender of division, prioritizing Islamist privilege and ideological opposition to the BJP while causing collateral harm to Hindus and undermining national unity and interests.
Commenti