The Supreme Court questioned on Wednesday the provisions of the WAQF Property Law (amendment), which downloaded the category of “established” WAQF properties per user, allowed non -Muslims to the WAQF Iphotive Bodte government.
The two -hour hearing of around 100 requests in a Court of the Full Court saw the president of India, Sanjiv Khanna, who heads a bank of three judges, referred to community violence in Western Bengala on the law of 2025 as “very disturbing.”
Duration of the Hearing, the president of the Supreme Court proposed a provisional order of three points to “balance the shares” on all sides of the case. In the first place, suggested that the property of the waqf property by the courts does not need, for the moment, to be unstarted or treated as non-waqf property. These would include properties categorized as ‘WAQF-by User’ or WAQF for long use without formal documentation or registration, WAQF by declaration or “otherwise.”
Second, the court could stay.
Third, the court reflected giving the appointment of non -Muslims as ex officers in the Central Council of Waqf and the WAQF joints, provided that the other members were Muslims.
Government positions passage
However, the Government arrested the approval of the interim order, looking for more time to discuss. The case was suspended to April 17 at 2 pm without intermediate order or notification issuance to the center.
The president of the Supreme Court said that the Court does not usually intervene with the legislation approved by Parliament, but there were exceptions. The CJI said Conns that the denotification of the WAQF properties per user would lead to a “big problem.”
“Before the British arrived, we did not have the Land Registration Law or the Property Transfer Law. Many of the Masjids were built in the fourteenth, 15th and seventeenth centuries. Asking them to produce a sale registered now an impossibility. As in the case of Jama Masjid, an established law of justice was established”, which justice it “does it.” Khanna asked the Government of the Union, represented by the General Tushar Mehta alone.
The main lawyer Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, said: “Who was the state to say that I cannot be a WAQF per user? Many of the WAQFs were created years ago. Where do you find the records?”
Senior Am Singhvi lawyer, also for petitioners, said that four out of eight WAQFs were WAQF properties per user.
Mehta said these properties could be registered. But the CJI asked how the government intended to “register” WAQF per user? There would be no documents.
Test of ‘Good Muslim’
The petitioners questioned a provision in the Law of 2025 who ordered a person to the proof that he had a leg practicing Muslim for five years before dedicating his property as WAQF. This clause, they said, was a violation of article 26 (the right to form and maintain institutions for religious and charitable attempts) of the Constitution.
“In summary, I have to try the state that I am a good Muslim,” said Sibal.
Mehta said that if a Muslim wanted to make charity, he could leave the WAQF fold and the performance of his benevolence.
The main lawyer Rajev Dhavan said that the basis of the attack of the petitioners was that a WAQF was essential for Islam. “Charity is an essential practice of Islam. The law triggers a loss of control of our religion in favor of the State,” he presented.
Judge KV Viswanathan asked when Hindus controlled the Hindu religious endowments could allow people of other religions to govern WAQF administrative bodies. Judge Sanjay Kumar, at the bank, Wonde the act was specific that only some members of these bodies must be Muslims while leaving the open for non -Muslims.
“The religious endowments of Hindus usually only have Hindus that control them … Are you saying that now in regards to the Hindu endowment bodies, it will allow Muslims to be part of them?”
Real estate treatment
Mehta opposed the argument of the petitioners that the center had “usurped” the Central Council of Waqf, and was “absurd” containing, only Muslims could administer or determine the state of the WAQFS. If so, the judges in the bank could not hear this case. “This is award. When we sit here, we lose our religion,” the CJI replied.
The law officer said that his reading of the provisions found that only two ex officio members, of the total of 22 in the Council, would not be Muslims. This aspect had been clarified for the Joint Parliamentary Committee. Besids, the existing WAQF council and the WAQF boards would continue with their full holdings. Sibal intervention to point out that the Council has not been existing during the last two years.
The CJI questioned the prison in Law 2025 that allowed the suspension of the treatment of a property like WAQF until a collector or a designated officer cools his report on his status.
“What will happen to the property rentals? Where will it be paid?” The president of the Supreme Court Khanna asked.
Mehta replied that only property identity as a WAQF would be suspended and not the use of property.
Sibal asked how the State could be the right to identify a property as WAQF. The officer who did the exercise was a government servant and a judge in his own case, the main lawyer argued.
Posted on April 16, 2025