Latest news with #DhananjayMahapatra
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Time of India
Typo in bail order keeps man in jail for a month; SC summons officials
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday fumed at the Ghaziabad jail superintendent refusing to release a Muslim man, who converted to Hinduism to marry but got booked under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, for a typographical error in the apex court's order granting him bail, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. The SC on April 29 granted bail to Aftab, who voluntarily converted to Hinduism by performing rituals at an Arya Samaj Mandir at Tis Hazari and married a Hindu girl according to Hindu rites. The girl's aunt had lodged a missing person complaint when she eloped with Aftab.
Time of India
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Govt on Waqf Act in SC: Proof of being Muslim in sync with Sharia
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the ambit, contours and necessity of an interim order after arguments over three days between the Centre and petitioners for and against the validity of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. Responding to the petitioners' objection to the provision that only a practising Muslim for five years could dedicate properties for waqf, SG Tushar Mehta said it was in sync with the requirement of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. No mention of 'waqf by user' term in 1923 Act: Raj govt to SC Given the widespread misuse of waqf properties and their usurpation for personal purposes noted from 1870s, registration of waqf properties, including 'waqf by user', needed to be mandatorily registered under the 1923 and 1995 Waqf Acts, he said. Mehta said a person could be governed by the 1937 Act only if he satisfied the prescribed authority that he was a Muslim and filled a form before that authority declaring that he desired to follow Sharia law and be governed by its provisions - ranging from marriage to waqfs. "So, what is the problem in the new law asking a person to be mandatorily a Muslim for the purpose of making a waqf?" he asked. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, supported by A M Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan and Huzefa Ahmadi, said the way the new waqf law was drafted, it would allow govt to take over 'waqf by user' properties, which were not registered for decades because of fault of state govts, an eventuality which would result in punishing the community for no fault of its. Sibal said waqf was part of zakat, one of the 5 cardinal principles intrinsic to Islam. "Waqf was purely religious, and no authority could interfere in this as the Constitution guarantees that every religious denomination has the absolute right to manage its religious institutions, which in this case is waqf," he added. Appearing for Rajasthan, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said 'waqf by user' was a term evolved by Privy Council and did not find mention in the 1923 Waqf Act. There was no dedication to Allah in case of 'waqf by user', he said. For ST Muslim organisation, Odisha, and a waqf board, senior advocates Ranjit Kumar, Maninder Singh and Gopal Sankaranarayanan supported Centre's stand. An advocate brought to the court's notice that in Tamil Nadu's Tiruchendurai, its 1,500-year-old Chola-era temple and the surrounding area had been declared waqf property by TN waqf board. She said the board's claim was met with resistance from villagers, who were unable to sell their land without the board's approval. She said the new law would curb such practices.
