The Supreme Court initiated the hearing of action questioning the WAQF Act (amendment), 2025, on Wednesday, April 16. During the hearing, the court praised concerns about the composition of the WAQF Council according to the amended law.
The matters are heard by the bench of the chief judge of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, justice Sanjay Kumar and the judiciary KV Viswanathan. The court has not received any interim order on Wednesday and on Thursday 17th April will continue to hear.
Also read | Live: Would Muslims be part of Hindu Trust? SC are difficult questions for government
Law Waqf (Aneledment), 2025, entered into force. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha approved the bill during the recently closed budget meeting of parliament. President of the Murm She gave her consent to the proposed Act 5 April.
Although ten petitions were originally mentioned on Wednesday, more than 15 religious institutions, parliamentary members, political parties, states, etc., which questioned law 2025, were filed on Wednesday.
Overall, more than 70 petitions questioned by law 2025 and one petition was filed by the questioning parental law, the 1995 WAQF law. Five states led by BJP, Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryan and Mahashtra submitted intervention applications.
The center filed an objection to the Supreme Court on April 8 and demanded that no orders should be taken without listening to its party.
Here are 10 large observations of the Supreme Indian Court during the argument on Wednesday:
1- During Wednesday’s CJI Khanna arguments, it was worried about how some features were classified as WAQF.
“We have been told that the High Court building in Delhi is on the WAQF, the Oberoi hotel is on the ground WAQF … We do not say that all properties with users are incorrectly registered, but there are also some real areas of concern,” Judge Sanjiv Khanna said.
The “WAQF by the user” concerns the practice where the property is considered a religious or charity foundation (WAQF) on the basis of its long -term, continuous use for such purposes, even if the owner is not a formal, written statement of WAQF.
Also read | Violence Murshidabad: Bengal Police consists of 9 members sitting to probing unrest
2- Head of advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioners, began to read parts of the New Testament in the call and said, “Who is the state to tell us how the inheritance will occur in my religion?” He claimed that, according to Islamic law, the inheritance was happening only after death, and the government was now trying to intervene before.
“Inheritance in Islam is after death”
Cji Khanna replied to Sibal’s notes and said, “But in Hinda’s stations it happens … So the parliament ordered the law for Muslims. Perhaps it is not like a law for Hindy. Article 26 will not enable the law in this case.
But Sibal faced and said, “The inheritance in Islam is after death. They’re hitting before.”
3- During his arguments, Sibal mentioned the provisions (Section 3c) that assets identified as government assets would not be the property of WAQF and that the government’s power would decide on the dispute.
Sibal then moved to the 3D section, which invalidates the creation of WAQF over the protected monuments. CJI pointed out that, according to the provisions, if the property was a protected monument at the time of creation of WAQF, such a waqf would be invalid.
“How many of these cases will there be?” Khanna asked. “Jama Masjid,” Sibal replied. CJI, however, said Jama Masjid was later informed as a protected memorial.
Also read | Supreme Court to hear a lawsuit against a demanding law on amendment
“The interpretation is in my favor. If it is declared as waqf before it was declared an ancient monument, it would not change any difference. It will remain that you will not be objected if it is not protected, cannot be announced because it would be announced because As it is on Libovoj, it is not believed to be stored according to how it is, because on Libovoj, as it is, as is said to be said to be given because it is said to be any, as if it was said.
Muslims in WAQF boards
4- Sibal also spoke about Sections 9, 14 about the nomination of non-Muslims at the Central Waqf Council and state councils. Sibal said it was a direct violation of Article 26.
Sibal argued that the Central Law regarding Sikh Gurudaras and many state laws on Hindu religious foundations do not allow the inclusion of people of other vortex in the relevant advice. He said that such provisions allow “complete takeover of advice through nomination”.
Sibal also raised objections to the provisions on the authorization of registration. “What’s wrong with that?” He asked Cji. Sibal said that WAQF-by-users can currently be created without registration.
“You can register WAQF, which will also help you maintain the register,” Cji said. The justice of Viswanathan also said, “If you have a deed, there will be no false or false claims.”
“They will ask us if WAQF has been created 300 years ago and to create a deed. Many of these properties were created hundreds of years ago and there will be no documents,” Sibal said.
Sibal added that when the British came, many Waqf properties were included in the register as findings to the general governor and, after independence, the government took the claim to these properties.
Concerns about Waqf-by-Uer users,
The 5- General Advocate of India Tushar Mehta for the Union stressed that the law was adopted after a sophisticated exercise by a joint parliamentary committee. He stressed that both houses of Parliament approved a bill after a long debate.
As the arguments continued, CJI pointed out the provisions concerning disputes with the government and asked why the property should not be considered WAQF until there is a decisive dispute. “Why doesn’t this remain the property of WAQF? Let the Civil Court decide,” Cji said.
“Mr. Tushar Mehta, tell us. Waqf-by-use, if accepted before 2025, is now declared invalid or non-existent?” He asked Cji.
Many Masjids built a 14th or 15th century before
6 – CJI also sought to clarify the conditions – that the assets must not be in the “dispute”. “Before the British came, we had no registration. Many of the Masjids are created in the 14th or 15th century. It requires to create a registered act is impossible.
“What prevented them from registering?” SG asked.
7- cji also questioned SG on the provisions embedded in Section 2a, which states that the Waqf Act will not be included, regardless of any court judgment.
“The legislature cannot declare any judgment or court decree as invalid, you can eliminate the basis of the law, but you cannot declare or declare it binding,” Cji said.
8- cji Khanna also asked about the provisions that allow the nomination of non-Muslim members for WAQF boards.
“When we sit here to decide, we lose our religion. We are talking about a council that drives religious affairs. Let’s say in a Hindu temple, everyone is on the Hindu Governor Council. How do you compare with judges?” He asked Cji.
You can’t rewrite the past
9- Cji also raised concerns about the provisions of section 2a.
Unable to rewrite the past 100 years back! – cji khanna
“Where public confidence has been declared WAQF, say 100 or 200 years back, you turn and say it’s not a waqf … you can’t rewrite the past 100 years back!” Said cji khanna.
Also read | India slams Pakistan over the “motivated and unfounded” note on the WAQF law
10- MEHTA said the Union government is usurpation. “It was in 1995 and even in 2013 was established Central Waqf Council. It is only a consulting body. It is only how the records must play, etc.” he said.
You allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu plates
Cji replied, “Mr. Mehta say that from now on you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu Endowment Plates. Say it openly,”
Cji Khanna condemned violence after Bill’s passing and said it was very worrying.
The court will hear the parties on Thursday at 2 pm. Although CJI Khanna was going to dictate an order, but after requesting a request for the CEO in India and the legal representatives for other respondents to hear before the provisional order, the court published the matter on April 17th.
(With Livelaw inputs)
(Tagstotranslate) WAQF BILL
