Kapil Sibal, the anti-Hindu legal crusader: From Ram Mandir to Delhi Riots, Waqf and more, how the lawyer-politician fights every case against the interest of Hindus and India
The historic Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 has been passed in both houses of Parliament and received the assent of President Draupadi Murmu. The new Waqf law is aimed at reforming the management of Waqf properties in India and reining in the rampant corruption within Waqf Boards controlled by a privileged Muslim elite. The new legislation has also discontinued several unwarranted powers given to Waqf Boards by the Congress government through the Waqf Act 1995.
Since the Waqf Act 2025 strips the Waqf Boards of their unchecked powers, the Islamists, opposition parties and the extended Islamo-leftist ecosystem continue to decry the Waqf legislation as an ‘assault’ on Muslim religious rights and freedom.
The draconian Section 40 of the Waqf Act 1995: How Congress legalised arbitrary land claims and encroachments by Waqf Boards to appease the Muslim votebank
The Waqf Act of 1995, enacted by the then Congress government, had multiple provisions for unchecked abuse of powers and encroachment of properties by the Muslim community. One of the provisions is listed under Section 40 of the legislation. It empowered the Waqf Board to unilaterally decide whether a property is ‘Waqf Property’ based on information collected by it.
“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 lays down the rule.
The decision of the Waqf Board in determining whether a property belongs to Waqf was final unless revoked/ modified by a tribunal. Section 40 of the Waqf Act of 1995 further allowed the Waqf Board to attach properties of trusts and societies after conducting an initial inquiry. It allowed the Board to issue directives to said trusts and societies to mandatorily register with it or show cause for not doing so.
This provision’s arbitrary nature empowered Waqf Boards across the country to declare any property as ‘Waqf’ and override legislation like the Trust Act of 1882 and the Societies Registration Act of 1860. The powers of Waqf Boards were unchallenged so much so that aggrieved parties had to rely on the decision of Waqf Tribunals only on their challenge against any Waqf Board randomly claiming ownership of their properties. In the absence of arbitration by a Civil Court, the decisions are skewed in favour of the Waqf Board itself. No wonder the Waqf Board in India became the third-largest landowner in India.
From corruption within Waqf Boards, illegal land grabs and encroachments, arbitrarily laying claim over houses of Hindus, land patches, colleges, Hindu temples and Hindu-majority villages, Gurudwaras, Churches, etc, the Waqf Boards were transformed into an invincible force in a supposedly ‘secular’ country by the Congress party. However, the Modi government has finally done the long-overdue course correction and removed the draconian Section 40 in the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, formally known as the UMEED Act (Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development).
Even before the Waqf Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha, Muslim-appeasing political parties masquerading as ‘secular’ outfits, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Islamists and their cheerleaders in general began issuing ‘instability’ and ‘we will hit the streets’ sort of threats. Akin to the pattern that preceded the anti-CAA protests and anti-Hindu Delhi Riots in 2020, this time disinformation is being peddled, fearmongering is rampant, and inflammatory statements are being made by those decrying the Waqf Act 2025 as ‘unconstitutional’. Just as it was seen during the anti-CAA protests, it all began peacefully; however, in no time, Congress leader Sonia Gandhi’s “Aar ya paar ki ladai” magnified the ‘peaceful’ protests into violence and arson in many parts of India, especially Delhi, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh.
A redux of the same seems to be happening now, just like it during anti-CAA agitation, the Islamists have targeted railways in West Bengal to ‘protest’ against a legislation that would only benefit the poor and discontinue privileges of the Muslim elite.
Just as the Citizenship Amendment Act was challenged in the Supreme Court, the Waqf Amendment Act has also reached the apex with multiple petitions filed challenging the legislation’s constitutional validity.
Besides, the pattern of charged political rhetoric, fearmongering, disinformation, petitions in the Supreme Court with the same ‘assault on constitution’, ‘minority khatre mein hai’, ‘democracy in danger’ arguments, one aspect that emerges common in the anti-CAA agitation and the anti-Waqf Act agitation is Kapil Sibal. Yes, the senior Supreme Court lawyer who arguably holds an unmatched legacy of championing causes that align against the interests of Hindus and India.
Kapil Sibal: The anti-Hindu legal crusader
Kapil Sibal, a seasoned lawyer with decades of experience in the legal arena, has been involved as a lawyer in many landmark cases that stirred outrage among Indian people, especially in cases where Hindu interests were involved.
One of Kapil Sibal’s most controversial legal engagements was in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Title Dispute. The ex-Congress leader and UPA Minister, fought the Ram Janmabhoomi case for the Sunni Waqf Board, opposing the building of a magnificent Ram Mandir at the then-disputed site in Ayodhya. He also employed dilatory tactics and asked the apex court to delay the decision in the Ram Janmabhoomi case till the 2019 general elections, assuming that a decision in the Hindu side’s favour could benefit the BJP. Despite the blatant politicisation of the issue concerning the Hindu faith and way above electoral politics, the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling favoured the construction of Ram Mandir at the Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya, giving a setback beyond recovery to Kapil Sibal and his client the Sunni Waqf Board.
In January 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other “Yajmans” performed the Pran Pratishtha of Lord Ram in his magnificent abode constructed in his birthplace in Ayodhya. Defeated in court, Sibal’s chagrin overwhelmed his senses as he called the consecration ceremony a “show-off”. The Former Congress veteran leader and UPA Minister argued that Lord Ram resides in his heart and the grand spectacle for Pran Pratishtha is a “show off”.
Kapil Sibal represented Shafin Jahan in the Hadiya Love Jihad case, took money from the Islamic terror outfit PFI
Yet another feather in Kapil Sibal’s decorated hat is the Shafin Jahan vs KM Ashokan case, also known as the Hadiya Love Jihad case. Kapil Sibal represented Hadiya’s husband, Shafin Jahan, in the Supreme Court, challenging the annulment of Hadiya and Shafin’s marriage by the Kerala High Court.
It must be recalled that a Hindu girl named Akhila had changed her name to Hadiya after converting to Islam and marrying a muslim man named Shafin Jahan. Hadiya/Akhila’s father, a retired Indian Army soldier, had alleged that it was a case of love jihad. While the Supreme Court ruled in Jahan’s favour, upholding Hadiya’s right as an adult to choose her religion and spouse, it emerged that the now-banned Islamic terror outfit Popular Front of India (PFI) Shafin Jahan’s case. The Islamic jihadist outfit had spent Rs 99,52,324 on the case. Of this, Rs 93,85,000 was reportedly paid to four senior lawyers, Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Indira Jaising and Marzook Bafaki who fought the case on Shafin Jahan’s behalf.
In 2020, the Enforcement Directorate alleged that PFI received huge funding to fuel anti-CAA protests across the country following the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act by both houses of the parliament in December 2019. It was reported that PFI spent about 120 crores in a month to orchestrate the violent riots in the country, naming eminent lawyers Kapil Sibal, Indira Jaising and Dushyant Dave also as the beneficiaries of PFI’s funding. Sibal was reported to have received Rs 77 lakh. However, the senior counsel issued a ‘clarification’ saying that the amount he received from the now-outlawed Islamic jihadist outfit was his fees for services as a lawyer in the Hadiya Love Jihad Case.
Kapil Sibal sought the release of PFI member Siddique Kappan
Back in 2020, a habeas corpus plea was filed in the Supreme Court seeking the release of Siddique Kappan, one of the four PFI members arrested by UP police for planning to create caste-based unrest and communal tension over the Hathras case. Appearing as a legal representative of Kerala Journalists’ Union, and Siddique Kappan, an active PFI member also working as a journalist, Sibal urged the Supreme Court to let him approach them under Article 32 of the Constitution. His request, however, was denied by the then CJI SA Bobde.
The Uttar Pradesh police had arrested four people, Siddiqui of Nagla in Muzaffarnagar, Siddique of Malappuram, Masood Ahmed of Jarwal in Bahraich district, and Alam of Kotwali area in Rampur district, in connection with the Hathras case.
Kapil Sibal represented the anti-Hindu Delhi Riots accused mastermind Umar Khalid before the Supreme Court
Sibal’s fixation with defending Islamists and those undermining the rights and safety of Hindus has only grown stronger. The senior lawyer was allegedly involved in failed attempts at forum shopping. In February 2024, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal allowed Umar Khalid to withdraw the bail plea. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khalid, told the bench that the petition is being withdrawn given a “change in circumstances” and to seek bail afresh before the trial court. Kapil Sibal also withdrew a separate petition questioning the legality of certain sections of the UAPA, especially dealing with bail.
OpIndia highlighted earlier that out of the 14 adjournments in 2023 and 2024, 7 delays and adjournments were sought by Umar Khalid himself. This deliberate delay was caused by Khalid’s counsel, Kapil Sibal. OpIndia detailed how the adjournments and the subsequent withdrawal were the result of a failed attempt at forum shopping by Kapil Sibal – in fact, the attempts at forum shopping by Kapil Sibal in the Umar Khalid case were thwarted by DY Chandrachud himself as CJI. Our analysis of the sequence of events in this case was confirmed by the former CJI in an interview he gave post-retirement earlier this year,
Kapil Sibal falsely claimed in the Supreme Court that BJP leader Parvesh Verma called for an economic boycott of Muslims, downplayed Muslim hate speech against Hindus
Back in 2022, Kapil Sibal lied in the Supreme Court and falsely claimed that BJP leader Parvesh Verma called for a boycott of the Muslim community, even though Verma did not name any community. When Justice KM Joseph asked Sibal whether Muslims have been making hate speeches, he denied knowledge of such a development. This came despite there being numerous incidents of Muslims delivering hate speeches that year against Hindus, including those by AIMIM leaders, Ajmer Dargah Khadim Syed Adil Chishti, Sawar Chishti, calling for open economic boycott of Hindus, among others.
When Kapil Sibal lied about Veer Savarkar’s remarks on two-nation theory, misquoted Dr Ambedkar in the Rajya Sabha
Back in 2019, in his speech in the Rajya Sabha during a debate on Citizenship Amendment Bill, then Congress MP Kapil Sibal claimed that the infamous two-nation theory, which became the basis for the bloodied partition of India and creation of Islamic terrorism state-sponsor Pakistan was perpetuated by Veer Savarkar and B R Ambedkar agreed too.
“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 said, adding that Dr Ambedkar also agreed to this.
While Sibal attempted to suggest that somehow the ‘Hindu hardliners’ like Veer Savarkar are also to be blamed for the partition of India, OpIndia debunked Sibal’s lies. Sibal had misquoted Ambedkar from the latter’s book ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’. Contrary to Kapil Sibal’s assertion, Savarkar did not advocate for the partition of India, although he acknowledged that there was a Hindu and a Muslim nation within India.
Summarising Savarkar’s views, Ambedkar wrote, “…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 infamous ‘zero-loss’ theory
Besides being an anti-Hindu crusader, Kapil Sibal has also taken stands that align against the interests of India. Sibal, who was then the Telecom Minister, floated “zero loss theory” in the 2G Spectrum scam case in 2011. His theory, suggesting that the Indian government suffered no financial loss from the undervalued allocation of 2G spectrum licenses in 2008 under his predecessor A Raja, had sparked outrage. The 2G spectrum was sold on a first-come-first-served basis rather than through a competitive auction.
The outrage stemmed from the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report stated that there was a presumed loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to the exchequer due to the irregularities in spectrum sales. In 2017, when the Supreme Court acquitted all the accused in the case, including Kanimozhi and A Raja, Sibal claimed that he stands ‘vindicated’; however, the special CBI court, in reality, acquitted the accused, citing insufficient evidence of corruption and the prosecution’s failure to prove criminality. Sibal, in his attempts to whitewash the corruption in the 2G spectrum case, resorted to questioning the credibility of CAG and dismissing its revelations as some trivial annoyance, displaying that political hubris reigned supreme over economic reality in the UPA era.
Imagine, a scam ranked by Time magazine as the world’s second-biggest abuse of power was simply a ‘zero loss’ episode in a series of scams in the UPA era.
Kapil Sibal and other Rajya Sabha MPs moved impeachment motion against Allahabad HC judge for calling Islamic extremists “Kathmulla”
In India’s flawed political parlance, calling a democratically elected government as ‘fascists’ and the Prime Minister as ‘dictator’ is acceptable, however, if a sitting high court judge calls Islamic extremists as “Kathmulla”, it becomes anti-Muslim hate speech.
In December 2024, a motion to remove Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav from office was submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretary-General over his allegedly controversial comments at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. The motion was submitted by a delegation headed by Kapil Sibal and others, 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.
According to the motion for impeachment, Justice Yadav broke “the secular ethos of the constitution and the judge’s oath of office.” Justice Shekhar Yadav’s judicial roster was altered by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court four days after his statement, and the alterations took effect on 16th December. He was also summoned by the Supreme Court Collegium to clarify his position on the matter after the apex court took cognisance of his speech on 10th December. In January 2025, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the PIL seeking Justice Yadav’s impeachment.
Kolkata RG Kar Medical College Rape and Murder Case: When Kapil Sibal defended TMC govt’s insensitivity and prioritised reputation of lawyers over justice for the victim
In September 2024, Kapil Sibal, who represented the West Bengal government, objected to the live streaming of the SC proceedings in the brutal RG Kar Hospital rape and murder case. Sibal claimed the reputation built over 5 decades would be destroyed by the live streaming of the case. Urging the Supreme Court to stop the live feed, Sibal complained that it has tarnished the reputation of lawyers and has resulted in threats to them. In response, the CJI DY Chandrachud-led bench emphasised the public interest aspect, maintaining that the court operates openly. He rejected Sibal’s request to discontinue live streaming.
Sibal received flak for defending the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government despite allegations of delayed FIR filing and mishandling by the state authorities. Sibal’s claim that the FIR in this case was filed promptly was questioned by the court itself. Sibal’s insensitivity peaked when he blamed the victim’s parents for the delay in FIR filing.
The senior counsel was also accused of laughing in the courtroom during the hearing in the case while doctors in West Bengal were on streets protesting the brutality the deceased victim was subjected to and the alleged negligence of state authorities. Sibal, however, denied this allegation.
Kapil Sibal represented a pro-Pakistan leader in the Supreme Court over a plea challenging the abrogation of Article 370, sought a ‘referendum’ in Kashmir
In the name of preserving ‘secularism’ and ‘democratic values’, Kapil Sibal had qualms about representing a person who openly declared his love for Pakistan.
In September 2023, the Supreme Court heard pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35 of the Indian Constitution. One of the petitioners in the case was a National Conference (NC) leader named Mohammad Akbar Lone, who had raised pro-Pakistan slogans in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in 2018.. The counsel representing Lone was none other than Kapil Sibal. Back then, CJI Chandrachud had pulled up Sibal for the pro-Pakistani remarks of Lone.
Instead of condemning Lone’s pro-Pakistan stand, Kapil Sibal alleged that raising the issue of ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ sloganeering by his client, Mohammad Akbar Lone, would lead to unnecessary media coverage.
Sibal also represented other petitioners who challenged the constitutional legality of the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A. He had vehemently opposed the removal of these temporary provisions giving special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Even though these provisions granting special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir obstructed full integration of J&K into India by allowing separate laws, restrictions on non-residents from settling or owning property, and perpetuating Jihadist separatism by curbing central authority. This fuelled decades of unrest, terrorism and discrimination against Kashmiri Hindus. OpIndia has reported time and again how Jammu and Kashmir has been witnessing an unprecedented wave of development and economic growth following the removal of Article 370.
It must be recalled that Kapil Sibal, while arguing against the abrogation of Article 370, called for a Brexit-like 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,” said Sibal, whose argument was shot down by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
Kapil Sibal and the Rafale Deal case
In 2018, Kapil Sibal represented Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie, and Prashant Bhushan as they moved a joint plea challenging the Modi government’s procurement of Rafale fighter jets from France. Sibal had questioned the deal’s transparency and pricing. The case back then had become a political flashpoint ahead of the 2019 general elections, with Congress and other opposition parties hurling the ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’ jibes against PM Modi.
However, the Supreme Court eventually dismissed the plea and found no irregularities in the deal. OpIndia reported earlier, however, after anticipating a clean chit to the centre on the Rafale Deal in the CAG report, the Congress party, especially Kapil Sibal, out of nowhere raised questions on the impartiality of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Rajiv Meherishi himself.
Kapil Sibal’s misplaced sympathy for gangster-turned politician Atiq Ahmed’s criminal son
In 2023, days after Asad Ahmed was killed in a police encounter, former Congress leader Kapil Sibal came out in defence of the son of gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed. Sibal tried to downplay the threat posed by Asad Ahmed 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.
It would not have been shocking if this statement came from an Islamist leader or a random Muslim-appeasing politician, however, a seasoned lawyer like Sibal sympathising with the main accused in the murder of lawyer Umesh Pal, who was gunned down in broad daylight on 24th February 2023, was outrageous. Asad was also planning to break his father, Atiq Ahme,d out of police custody and attack the police convoy. However, despite being well aware of the facts, Kapil Sibal sought to ignore them, lament the death of Asad Ahmed and insinuated that the deceased was not a security threat. Even Pakistani Jihadi who carried out terror attack in Mumbai on 22th November 2008 was also 20-21 years old at that time, perhaps for Sibal, even he was also not a threat to national security.
When Kapil Sibal claimed that Assam was a part of Myanmar
Back in 2023, Kapil Sibal sparked outrage by claiming that Assam was originally a part of Myanmar. Kapil Sibal made the controversial comments on 7th September 2023 in the Supreme Court while opposing petitions challenging Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides a different cut-off date for immigrants to be considered illegal immigrants. As per this, all foreigners who entered Assam on or before 25th March 1971 will be granted Indian citizenship, against the cut-off date of 19th July 1949 for the rest of the country. While arguing against the petitions, Kapil Sibal, who represented Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and AAMSU, said that the history of Assam is complicated as it was part of Myanmar, which was later handed over to the British. Sibal also claimed that migration to Assam can’t be mapped, as ‘no migration can ever be mapped’.
Kapil Sibal represented the Karnataka Waqf Board and insinuated that if Hindu festivals were to be celebrated on Waqf land, Muslims would be ‘provoked’
In August 2022, the Supreme Court denied permission for Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations at the disputed Idgah Maidan in Bengaluru. The apex court imposed a status quo on the Maidan on a petition by the Karnataka Waqf Board and said, “No pooja, no namaaz as of now.” The Idgah Maidan was at the centre of a controversy with both the Karnataka Waqf Board and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike claiming its ownership.
While the Karnataka High Court had permitted the state government to consider a plea seeking permission to celebrate Ganesh Chaturthi on Idgah Maidan in Chamarajpet, Bengaluru, for a limited period, the state Waqf Board approached the Supreme Court claiming that no such religious celebrations had been held here for 200 years. Appearing on behalf of the Waqf Board, Kapil Sibal had argued before the top court that the Karnataka HC’s order violates the 1964 order passed by the Supreme Court. Sibal had put up a rhetorical question to the judges: If other religious festivals are allowed on the grounds owned by Waqf, where only Islamic religious festivals are held, ‘Your Lordships know what will happen’.
He also argued that the Karnataka HC’s order might change the ‘character of the maidan’ and that ‘nod to the puja at the maidan might hurt communal harmony.’ Sibal had put up a rhetorical question to the judges, that if other religious festivals are allowed on ground owned by Waqf, where only Islamic religious festivals are held, ‘Your Lordships know that what will happen’. Kapil Sibal, who on many occasions projected himself as a ‘Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb’ enthusiast and a big-time secularist, shamelessly advocated for Muslim hegemony over a disputed land to prevent Hindus from celebrating their festival on the Idgah Maidan.
Kapil Sibal to don his black robe once again to represent Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind before the Supreme Court against the Waqf Amendment Act (UMEED Act)
In continuation of his dark legacy of championing causes that either align with the interests of Islamists or against the interests of Hindus, Kapil Sibal is set to represent Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind in the Supreme Court against its plea challenging constitutional validity of the Waqf Act (UMEED Act) recently cleared by both houses of the Parliament and assented to by the President of India. Sibal was rebuked recently for mentioning pleas challenging the Waqf Act before the SC for urgent hearing. CJI Sanjiv Khanna told Sibal and advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi to follow established procedures.
It is pertinent to note that Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind is one of the most influential and largest Islamic organisations, which has provided legal support to Muslims accused of terrorism cases for over a decade now. It has defended its actions, saying that they provide legal services to ‘innocent Muslims’. The legal cell, set up by JUH president Maulana Arshad Madani in 2007, takes up the cases and enlists lawyers to defend the terror accused in the courts. The Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind has offered its services to around 700 accused. What is worrying about such interventions is that they have been able to get acquittals of at least 192 terror accused since 2007. Most of the acquittals did not take place owing to the proven innocence of the accused. Instead, the Muslim men were released due to a lack of evidence or shoddy investigation by the police. Jamiat also hired a lawyer to fight the case of the anti-Hindu Nuh Violence accused Congress leader Mamman Khan.
The Jamiat has earlier demanded a separate law to “specifically punish those inciting violence against minorities” amid the alleged rise in Islamophobia. From opposing Hindu side’s pleas to reopen Kashi-Mathura temple dispute cases to proclaiming that Muslims will follow Shariah only, the Jamiat has been clear about how ‘secular’ it’s ideology is and how deep their ‘love’ is for the farce called Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb, however, Kapil Sibal being the legal eagle dedicated to preserving this farce, has no qualms in representing an outright Islamist outfit and defend their plea against a law aimed at curbing corruption within Waqf Boards, arbitrary landownership claims against properties and religious sites of Hindus, Christians and other non-Muslims, illegal encroachment of government lands and ending the monopoly of a privileged few.
Triple Talaq case and Kapil Sibal’s advocacy for the perpetuation of a regressive practice against Muslim women
Kapil Sibal’s career trajectory as a lawyer reflects a pattern of championing causes that Hindu interests or entrench Muslim hegemony, that too at the expense of obstructing societal reforms. In the Shayara Bano vs Union of India case, Kapil Sibal represented the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). His advocacy on behalf of AIMPLB witnessed him argue vociferously for the continuation of the regressive and highly patriarchal practice of instant Triple Talaq. Sibal chose to prioritize Islamic orthodoxy over gender justice.
Back in 2017, OpIndia reported about the six main arguments put forth by Kapil Sibal while representing AIMPLB before the Supreme Court. His first argument was, “Triple talaq is going on since 1400 years, how can you say it is unconstitutional?” Basically, if Muslim women were being randomly ‘divorced’ by their husbands over reasons as trivial as using less salt and spices in food, since hundreds of years, the practice should continue and the elected government of a so-called secular nation must not interfere.
Another argument Sibal offered before 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.” He, however, despite being a legal representative of Sunni Waqf Board in the Ram Janmbhoomi case, ignored the fact that the faith of Hindus about Ramlalla’s birthplace was questioned in the court and the Hindu side presented its historical and scriptural records to prove the veracity of their claim.
Some of the other arguments presented by Kapil Sibal in this case were, “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 desperation to defend the indefensible, Sibal resorted to suggesting that Sharia is somehow greater than the Indian constitution for Indian Muslims, and that Muslims are free to accept and abide by the Constitution as per their whims. He suggested that any reform should come from within the Muslim community instead of through parliament, however, as he himself argued that the practice of Triple Talaq has been prevalent since 1400 years, if a “reform from within the community” didn’t come in all these centuries, how many more centuries should have Muslim women waited for it. He had even downplayed the rampant cases of instant triple talaq, saying that such cases do not warrant a reform.
Fortunately, on 22nd August 2017, Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict declaring Talaq-e-biddat or ‘instant triple talaq’ unconstitutional i.e. the act of pronouncing divorce by a Muslim man by saying (or even electronically sending on messaging platforms) the term ‘talaq’ three times in a go, will no longer be a valid form of divorce in the eyes of law. The Modi government had submitted before the apex court that the said practice is indeed violative of rights conferred by Article 14, 15 and 21. In 2019, the Modi government criminalised the regressive practice of instant triple talaq whereby a Muslim man could legally divorce his wife by pronouncing Talaq three times.
Conclusion
It seems like Kapil Sibal has a knack for perpetuating a framework that prioritises communal privilege for Muslims over national interest. While Sibal as a lawyer is free to take up the case of any of his clients, the senior lawyer’s career trajectory indicates that beyond the façade of being a progressive jurist, Sibal is a defender of Islamists who feel entitled to hold certain special rights and privileges by virtue of being Muslims, even if that means crushing the rights of the Hindu majority and other non-Muslim communities in the country.
From opposing the Hindu claim in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Title Dispute case to defending to regressive practices like instant Triple Talaq, pushing for reinstatement of the divisive Article 370 and 35a, downplaying the massive 2G spectrum scam, representing Islamists and alleged anti-Hindu rioters in court, among other cases, Kapil Sibal’s career trajectory comes across as a relentless crusade against Hindu and national interests.
Now, with his advocacy against the Waqf Act 2025, Sibal continues to align himself with causes that entrench Muslim institutional dominance, serving the Islamist elite while sideling the welfare of ordinary Muslims and rights of Hindus and other religious communities who have suffered due to arbitrary claims laid over their properties by Waqf Boards across the country. While expecting Sibal to be an outright neutral lawyer is senseless given he has been an active politician, a parliamentarian and a minister, Sibal emerges more as both, an enabler and defender of division, prioritising Islamist privilege and ideological opposition to the BJP alongside inflicting collateral harm on Hindus while letting national interests and unity go for a toss.
News