What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: Letter and spirit

Context

The Supreme Court wisely chose to both stay and uphold different provisions of the Waqf Act.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in its September 15, 2025 judgment on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, struck a balance between religious autonomy and state regulation. By staying certain provisions while upholding others, the Court ensured both constitutional validity and protection against arbitrary interference, leaving scope for further political consensus and community confidence-building.

Supreme Court’s Judgment on Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• Delivered on September 15, 2025, concerning amendments to the 1995 Waqf Act.
• Court chose a middle path:
  • Stayed some controversial provisions, but
  • Refused to freeze the entire Act.
• Both supporters and criticsof the Act claimed victory.

Government’s and Critics’ Views

• Government’s stance: Amendments necessary to curb misuse and corruptionin waqf administration.
• Critics (including Congress): Viewed as arbitrary interferencein Muslim community affairs.

Provisions Stayed by the Court

• Requirement that only Muslims practising for five yearscan create waqf.
• Power of District Collectorsto adjudicate waqf property disputes.
• Cap introduced on non-Muslim representation:
  • Central Waqf Council: Maximum of 4 non-Muslim members(earlier up to 12).
  • State Waqf Boards: Maximum of 3 non-Muslim members(earlier up to 7).
• Direction: CEOs of Waqf Boards should preferably be Muslims.

Provisions Upheld by the Court

• Removal of waqf-by-user recognitionconsidered valid.
  • Exception: Properties already registered under this claim till April 8, 2025remain protected.
• Restrictions on granting waqf status to protected monumentsand tribal lands upheld as constitutionally valid.

Broader Implications

1. Religious Autonomy vs State Regulation

• Need for balance between community self-governanceand state oversight.
• Autonomy cannot shield misuseof resources by community leaders.
• Equally, faith cannot justify claims over public resources.

2. Role of the State

• State has the right and dutyto protect people from exploitation.
• Problem arises when principles are applied selectivelyacross religions.

3. Constitutional Philosophy

• Court applied the presumption of constitutionalityfor laws passed by Parliament.
• Warned against partisan politics, which could weaken democracy.

4. Need for Consensus

• Government should negotiate with the Oppositionto broaden acceptance of laws.
• Laws impacting particular communities should involve consultation and confidence-building.
• Complete consensus may not be possible, but efforts must be made in that direction.

Conclusion

The verdict reflects the Court’s emphasis on presumption of constitutionality, while highlighting the dangers of partisan politics in sensitive matters of faith and governance. For long-term stability, the government must engage with the Opposition and affected communities, ensuring laws command the widest acceptance. Building trust and consensus remains the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.

 

Editorial 2: ​Let Geiger counters, not guesses, shape Iran actions

Context

Facilitating IAEA oversight of Iran’s nuclear programme would allow India to lead, grounding negotiations in verifiable evidence.

Introduction

A new nuclear crisis is unfolding in West Asia. In June 2025, the United States carried out strikes on Iran’s underground nuclear facility at Fordow, escalating regional tensions. Soon after, on August 28, Britain, France, and Germany (E3) invoked the “snapback” clause of the 2015 nuclear deal, accusing Tehran of serious violations. With these developments, the world now stands at a critical juncture, pressed to choose swiftly between the path of diplomacyor the dangers of escalation.

Implications of a Failed Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Issue

• UN measures restored: halt to uranium enrichment, tighter arms transfer controls, finance and shipping restrictions, and re-designation of individuals linked to Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes.
• Iran: rejects the move as unlawful.
• United States: treats it as a test of non-proliferation.
• Europe (E3): sees multilateral commitments under strain.
• Russia and China: push for delay and leverage.
• Israel and Gulf states: weigh warning times and war risks.
• Oil importers: monitor global price shocks.
• Shipping companies: reassess insurance risks.
• Banks: calculate financial exposure.
• India: faces sharper anxieties—stability in its extended neighbourhood, steady oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz, and protection of 8 million Indian citizens in West Asia.

Verification, Diplomacy, and Iran’s Nuclear Dilemma

• Absence of verified data: Since the strikes, no independent checks (dosimeter readings, coolant line tests) have been conducted.
• IAEA withdrawal: Agency staff left Iran after legislation required Supreme National Security Council approvalfor cooperation.
• Information vacuum: Rumours replaced measurement, with each capital drawing its own conclusions as global focus shifted.
• Centrality of IAEA access:
  • Verification anchors negotiations to facts, not speculation.
  • Establishes a baseline on Iranian stockpiles.
  • Provides regular updates—as seen in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia plant case—which calm markets and steady expectations.
  • If framed as sovereign choice, not concession, it could bolster Iran’s claim of a civilian programmewhile supporting non-proliferation norms.
• Tehran’s reservations:
  • Sovereignty and securityseen as outweighing treaty obligations.
  • Fear that inspectors may expose sites to targeting—past Israeli and U.S. strikes often followed IAEA disclosures.
  • Concerns fuel parliamentary resistanceand encourage using opacity as bargaining leverage with Washington.
• Escalation risks:
  • Some legislators urge withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
  • Such a move would strip IAEA of inspection rights.
  • Could push crisis into uncharted territory, harden sanctions, and revive the military option.

India’s Role in Defusing the Nuclear Crisis

• Position and credibility:
  • Long-standing IAEA Board memberwith ties across divides.
  • Member of SCO, where it joined condemnation of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran at the Tianjin summit.
  • Active in BRICS, which now includes Iran.
• Diplomatic support:
  • Can push for restoring technical IAEA accesswhile safeguarding operational details.
  • If framed as a sovereign choice by Tehran, and backed by the Global South, chances of Iranian approval rise.
• Technical contribution:
  • India’s IAEA-certified Tarapur facilitycould undertake sample analysis under safeguards.
  • Demonstrates that responsible stakeholders can provide practical supportduring crises.
• Strategic impact:
  • Contributions may not grab headlines but could tilt the balance toward diplomacy.
  • Offers a stabilising alternative at a time when the risk of escalation is high.

Conclusion

The window for diplomacy is closing rapidly. Iran has offered a small opening by allowing IAEA inspectors into Bushehr last month to monitor the refuelling of its nuclear power plant. Further, on September 9, 2025, the IAEA and Iran signed an agreement in Cairo. If this arrangement extends to the previously bombed sites, the E3 may consider pausing the snapback mechanism, potentially shifting momentum back to diplomacy. The alternative scenario is far more concerning, involving sanctions, standoffs, and cycles of strike and counterstrike. For India, the path is clear. Supporting verification aligns with its strategic interests in West Asia, safeguards its citizens abroad, and ensures energy security. It also reinforces India’s image as a responsible global power. The way forward is straightforward: it is time to let facts, not speculation, guide assessments of Iran’s nuclear programme.