SC issues notice in plea challenging Waqf Act, tags case with similar matter
New Delhi, May 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Nikhil Upadhyay, son of Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The Court agreed to treat the matter as an Interlocutory Application (IA) and tagged it with a previously filed similar petition.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice B R Gavai, along with Justice J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard the matter and sought a response from the Union government.
At the outset, CJI Gavai asked Advocate Upadhyay, "Why are you challenging a 1995 Act in 2025?"
Adv Upadhyay responded, "This Court is hearing challenges to the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and the Minorities Act."
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati then clarified, "He is challenging the provisions earlier to the 2025 Act."
She further stated, "If your Lordships want to tag it with the earlier petition, I will not object. But the present round relating to the 2025 Act, your Lordships have not taken anyone yet."
CJI Gavai inquired, "That Vishnu Shankar Jain matter?"
ASG Bhati, "That's right, My Lords."
CJI, "We will tag it along with that."
The Court then directed, "Issue notice. Tag with connected matter."
The PIL challenges the constitutional validity of provisions under Sections 3(r), 4, 5, 6(1), 7(1), 8, 28, 29, 33, 36, 41, 52, 83, 85, 89, and 101 of the Waqf Act, 1995.
The petition contends that the Waqf Act is discriminatory as it governs only Muslim religious properties, while no similar legislative framework exists for other religious communities including Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Baháʼís and Zoroastrians.
According to the plea, 'Waqf is not mentioned in the Constitution. If the Act seeks to uphold Articles 25–26, it must align with Articles 14–15. If enacted under Entries 10 and 28 of the Concurrent List, it must be gender-neutral and religion-neutral.
If it seeks to protect minority rights under Articles 29–30, then it must include all religious minorities.'
The PIL also questions the legal basis of vast property claims by Waqf Boards, alleging that many are made without proper documentation or due process. It asserts that such practices infringe on the rights of non-Muslim citizens under Articles 25, 26, 29, and 300A of the Constitution.
The plea seeks uniform treatment of religious endowments across communities and the repeal of what it terms 'arbitrary and religion-specific provisions.'
The matter will now be heard along with the previously filed petition by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON: Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. "What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president," said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it.
New Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Bharat Mata row: CPI hits out at Raj Bhavan, to hoist Tricolour in protest
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Coming out against the Raj Bhavan over the Bharat Mata row, CPI state secretary Binoy Viswam on Friday said all branches of the party will hoist the national flag and plant saplings on Saturday to underscore the message that Bharat Mata is truly represented by the Tricolour. He said the saplings will be nurtured by the party branches as symbols of national unity. 'The events that unfolded in the past 48 hours in the Raj Bhavan, culminating in the sanctification of an image associated with the RSS in the official residence of the constitutional authority, cannot be condoned by anyone who celebrates the idea of India and honours the Constitution in letter and spirit,' Binoy said. Elaborating on the circumstances that led to the controversy, he said on World Environment Day on June 5, the agriculture department headed by Minister P Prasad decided to distribute and plant saplings with the participation of the honourable Governor at the Raj Bhavan. 'On June 4, the minister's office received a 'revised' schedule of programme in which 'prayer' was replaced with 'lighting of the lamp' and paying 'floral tributes to Bharatamba' (image of Bharat Mata allegedly used by the RSS at its functions),' he said. Binoy said Prasad called the official in charge at Raj Bhavan and enquired about the changes. 'He was told floral offerings would be made to a portrait of Bharatamba. The minister said details of the portrait should be shared as it is a government event and unprecedented changes, for both the government and Raj Bhavan, are now being incorporated,' he said.
The Wire
39 minutes ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
