Strategic Maneuvers: 5 Shocking Ways the Indian Government Outsmarts Judicial Setbacks

The Indian government has repeatedly employed strategic concessions to preempt unfavorable Supreme Court rulings, balancing legal challenges with executive agility. In April 2025, it paused contentious clauses in the Waqf Act—including “waqf by use” and non-Muslim board appointments—after the Court signaled intent to stay them, mirroring past tactics. In 2022, facing potential invalidation of the colonial-era sedition law, the Centre abruptly pledged to “re-examine” it, halting judicial scrutiny.

Similarly, during 2023 hearings on Article 370’s abrogation, assurances of restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood sidestepped a constitutional ruling on Parliament’s power to downgrade states. Such maneuvers, often led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, reflect a pattern of avoiding binding precedents while retaining policy flexibility.

Critics argue this undermines judicial authority by leaving critical constitutional questions unresolved, risking erosion of checks on executive power. While tactically effective, these concessions spotlight tensions between governance pragmatism and institutional accountability, raising concerns about long-term impacts on India’s rule of law framework. 

Strategic Maneuvers: 5 Shocking Ways the Indian Government Outsmarts Judicial Setbacks

In a recurring pattern, the Indian government has adeptly navigated potential legal defeats by preemptively altering its stance in high-profile cases, sidestepping adverse Supreme Court rulings. This strategy, observed in cases ranging from colonial-era sedition laws to the contentious abrogation of Article 370, reflects a nuanced approach to managing judicial outcomes while preserving executive flexibility.  

The Waqf Act, 2025: A Recent Case Study

The latest example unfolded in April 2025, when the Centre paused two provisions of the Waqf Act following critical scrutiny by a Supreme Court bench. The provisions—allowing the classification of land as waqf (Islamic charitable trust) based on prolonged usage (“waqf by use”) and mandating non-Muslim representation on Waqf Boards—faced judicial skepticism. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, initially seeking delays, ultimately assured the Court the government would suspend these clauses. This move averted an anticipated stay order, echoing past tactics.

Historical Precedents: Sedition Law and Article 370

• Sedition Law (May 2022):

A day after the Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of Section 124A (sedition), the Centre announced a re-examination of the law. This abrupt shift, despite earlier defenses by Mehta, halted potential invalidation of the provision. Critics argued this “strategic retreat” allowed the government to control the narrative, avoiding a binding judicial strike-down.

• Article 370 Abrogation (September 2023):

During hearings on Jammu and Kashmir’s status, the government assured the restoration of statehood (excluding Ladakh). This concession led the Court to sidestep ruling on Parliament’s power to downgrade a state to a Union Territory—a constitutional question with far-reaching implications. By offering a partial rollback, the Centre preempted a precedent that could limit future executive actions.

• Delhi Riots Bail (June 2020):

In activist Safoora Zargar’s case, the Centre reversed its opposition to bail on “humanitarian grounds” after the Delhi High Court indicated inclination toward release. This pivot, following strong initial resistance, underscored a pattern of tactical concessions when courts lean toward unfavorable orders.

Legal and Institutional Implications

Legal experts highlight concerns over separation of powers. By preempting rulings, the executive avoids creating judicial precedents that could constrain future policies. For instance, pausing the Waqf Act provisions allows the government to revisit the law without a court-imposed framework. However, this approach risks undermining judicial authority, as courts lose opportunities to clarify constitutional boundaries.

The Role of Strategic Concessions

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s recurrent role in these cases—switching from defense to concession—reveals a calculated legal strategy. While such maneuvers are not unique to India (e.g., U.S. administrations settling cases to avoid Supreme Court rulings), their frequency in India raises questions about the judiciary’s ability to check executive overreach.

Broader Context: Waqf Act Controversies

The paused “waqf by use” provision, which permits land claims based on long-standing Muslim use, has sparked debates over property rights and communal tensions. Opponents argue it risks arbitrary land seizures, while supporters view it as protecting minority heritage. Similarly, non-Muslim appointments to Waqf Boards, intended as inclusive, faced allegations of diluting the bodies’ religious character.

Conclusion: A Delicate Balance

While the government’s strategy averts immediate legal losses, it leaves critical constitutional questions unresolved. Judicial evasion may offer short-term gains but risks perpetuating ambiguity in governance. As legal scholar Gautam Bhatia notes, “When the executive repeatedly sidesteps judicial review, it weakens the judiciary’s role as a constitutional check.” The challenge lies in ensuring that tactical concessions do not erode the judiciary’s mandate to uphold the rule of law.