On SC's Waqf hearing eve, DMK says 95% stakeholders before JPC was against amendments

The Hindu

04-05-2025

The ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu on Sunday (May 4, 2025) raised doubts over the impartiality of the Joint Parliamentary Committee proceedings on Waqf amendments, hinting that communal banners and interests may have got the upper hand during deliberations on the Bill.
'During the course of deliberations, approximately 95% of the stakeholders who appeared before the committee expressed strong opposition to the Bill. The remaining 5% who supported the Bill did so, representing communal interests or under communal banners, thereby raising concerns about the representativeness and impartiality of the process,' a rejoinder affidavit filed by the DMK, represented by senior advocate P. Wilson and advocates Richardson Wilson, Apoorv Malhotra, Lokesh Krishna and Anuradha Arputham, said.
The DMK said that merely because the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, had been enacted, it wasn't exempted from constitutional review, especially if it would result in manifesting injustice and deprivation of fundamental rights of persons based on their religious identity.
Also read | Amendments will cripple Waqf Boards and their autonomy, says T.N. CM Stalin
A Special Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna will consider the question of interim stay of the Act on May 5.
The party said that the continuation of the Act, even for a limited period, would permanently alter legal rights and status of properties, causing irreversible consequences. 'On the other hand, a temporary stay would merely maintain the status quo ante and ensure that no irreversible prejudice or harm is caused before the constitutionality of the provisions is adjudicated.' the affidavit said.
Kerala's Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) agreed with the DMK in a separate affidavit on interim stay. Otherwise, it said, 'a large number of properties, not limited to mosques, graveyards, orphanages, and schools across the country will be at risk of losing their status as waqf properties, and will be subject to takeover by the Union government'.
The Union government's reliance that a statute passed by Parliament had a 'presumption of constitutionality' and was misplaced, and did not absolve it from scrutiny when fundamental rights were at stake, the IUML, represented by advocates Haris Beeran, Usman Ghani Khan and P. Muhammad Haneef, submitted.
The DMK said the Centre's claim that registration of waqf-by-user properties was mandatory was untenable.
'While the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, the Waqf Act, 1954, and the Waqf Act, 1995 – as they stood prior to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 – required an applicant to furnish particulars within their knowledge, such as the description of properties, annual income, and nature and object of the waqf, there was no statutory mandate to furnish information that is incapable of being ascertained – such as the name of the original settlor in waqfs by user created centuries ago. Waqf-by-user does not depend on the registration for its legal status as a waqf,' the DMK argued.
The petitioners have argued that the 2025 Act, by purporting to deny recognition to waqfs-by-user and mandating impossible preconditions to fulfil for centuries-old endowments, strikes at the heart of the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.
Objecting to any kind of stay from the court on the full implementation of the Act, the government said rampant encroachments in the name of waqfs led to introduction of the amendments.
The Centre said that intrusions into private and government properties through misuse of earlier waqf provisions led to a phenomenal 116% rise in waqf lands from 2013 to 2024 – a high unmatched even during the Mughal period.
On April 16, the three-judge Bench recorded an assurance by the government to neither denotify any waqf property, including waqf-by-user ones, nor make any appointment of non-Muslims to the Central Waqf Council or the States Waqf Boards under the 2025 Act.