On Wednesday (April 16, 2025), the Supreme Court questioned the provisions of the WAQF Act, 2025, which abolished the “established” category of assets “established” by the user, allowed non -Muslims the administrative bodies of the WAQF and granted state powers to determine whether it is property or government.
WAQF SC SC SC: Watch Live Updates on April 17, 2025
The two -hour hearing of approximately 100 petitions in the wrapped courtroom was seen by the main judge of India Sanjiv Khann, who is heading on the bench of three judges, refers to municipal violence in West Bengal as “very worrying” as “very worrying”.
During hearing, the main judge proposed a three -point interim order to “balance shares” from all sides in this case.
First, he suggested that the real estate has already declared the courts of WAQF courts, may not be denotified or considered as WAQF properties. These would be features categorized as “waqf-by-user” or WAQF by long use without formal documentation or registration, WAQF declaration or “otherwise”.
Secondly, the CJI made that the designated government officer could continue to examine whether the property was WAQF or the government, but in the meantime, the interconnection of freezing of the property (real estate dedicated to Allah for charity or religious purposes could be interconnected.
Third, the Chief Judge Mulled and the appointment of non-Muslims for members of Ex-Offio in the middle council of WAQF and the WAQF council, assuming that the other members were Muslims.
However, the government stopped completing any interim order and tried to argue more. The case was interrupted by Thursday (April 17, 2025) at 14:00 without a provisional order or issuing a center notice.
WAQF (amendment design) Bill | Analysis and explanation from Hindu
“A huge problem”
The main judge stated that the court would normally not interfere with the law adopted by the parliament, but there were exceptions. CJI expressed concern that the designation of WAQF-by-user properties would lead to a “huge problem”.
“Before the British came, we did not have a land registration Act or transfer of the property law. The law on amendments, can it be invalid now?”
The chapel of the chapel of Sibal for the petitioner said, “Who was the state that I say I can’t be a WAQF-BYS user? Many of these waqfs were created hundreds of years ago. Where can you find records?”
Senior Advocate Am Singhvi, also for the petitioner, said four of the eight lakh Waqfs were Waqf-by-user real estate.
Mr. Mehta said that these properties could be registered. But Cji asked how the government intended to “register” waqf-by-user? There would be no documents.
Explained | What does the WAQF account mean for Madrassas and Muslim education
The petitioners questioned the provisions in Act 2025, which ordered the person to prove that he had practiced a Muslim for five years before devoting his property as WAQF. This provision was that the violation of Article 26 (the right to shape and maintain institutions for religious and charity intentions) of the Constitution.
“In short, I have to prove to the state that I am a good Muslim,” Mr. Sibal said.
Mr. Mehta said that if a Muslim wanted to make a charity, he could come out of the WAQF fold and make his benevolence.
The leader of the defense attorney Rajeev Dhavan said the basis of the proposal attack was that WAQF was necessary for Islam. “Caritas is a necessary practice of Islam. The law will trigger a loss of control of our religion in favor of the state,” he said.
KV Viswanathan justice asked when the Hindu religious foundations were controlled by Hindu, the law could allow persons from other religions to manage the administrative authorities of the WAQF. Judge Sanjay Kumar wondered why the act was specific, that only some members of these bodies must be Muslims, while the door leaves open to non -Muslims.
“The Hindus religious foundations are usually only Hindu dominate them … Now you say that when it comes to Hindu foundations, you will allow Muslims to be part of them,” Cji said.
Explained | What are the key changes designed in the new WAQF account?
Mr. Mehta raised objections to the proposers’ argument that the center had “usurp” the Central Council of WAQF, and it was “absurd” to claim that only Muslims could manage or determine the status of WAQF. If so, the judges on the bench did not hear this case.
“That’s a decision. When we sit here, we’ll lose our religion,” Cji retorted.
The law officer stated that his reading provisions found that only two members of Ex-Officio, out of a total of 22 in the Council, would be non-Muslims. This aspect was clarified by the common parliamentary committee. In addition, the existing WAQF and WAQF boards would continue their full functions. Mr. Sibal intervened to point out that the Council did not exist in the last two and a half years.
CJI questioned the reservation in the Act 2025, which allowed the suspension of assets such as WAQF until the collector or designated officer presented his report on his status.
“What happens to the property rent? Where will it be paid?” The chief judge Khanna asked.
Mr Mehta replied that only the identity of assets such as WAQF would be suspended and did not use assets.
Mr. Sibal asked how the state could have the right to identify the property as WAQF. The officer who showed the exercises was a government official and judge in his own affairs, a higher lawyer argued.
Published – April 16 2025 9:19
