Latest news with #Waqf-by-user
Hans India
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Make strong case for interim relief: SC
New Delhi: In a significant hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court examined petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 for over three hours, focusing primarily on the issue of interim relief. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard arguments centred on whether to grant a stay on the amended law. During the session, CJI Gavai emphasised that a "very strong and glaring case" must be made out for any statute to be stayed. 'There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, a very strong case is required. Otherwise, this presumption will prevail,' the CJI observed. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, asserted that the 2025 amendments posed an imminent threat of "irreparable injury" if implemented. He claimed the petitioners had a solid prima facie case against the amendments. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, requested the court to limit the hearing to three specific issues, as identified by the previous bench on April 16. He noted that the petitioners' written submissions exceeded this scope. In response, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed any narrowing of the hearing. Sibal contended that no such restriction was placed by the court in its earlier order, stating that the nature of the challenge required a comprehensive hearing. CJI Gavai remarked that the bench would proceed based on the court record and invited Sibal to begin his submissions. Opening his arguments, Sibal strongly criticized the 2025 amendments, stating that they were intended to "capture Waqfs" by granting government officers quasi-judicial powers. He objected to the provision that allows a government official to decide whether Waqf land is encroaching on state property a move he called unconstitutional. He further argued that the amendments nullified the principle of 'once a Waqf, always a Waqf.' Under earlier laws, non-registration of Waqf properties did not affect their validity, and only resulted in penalties for the caretaker (Muttawalli). But under the new law, non-registration could strip a property of its Waqf status entirely. The bench noted this submission, stating, "From 1913 to 2023, though registration of Waqf was mandated, no serious consequences followed except removal of the Muttawalli. The 2025 amendments depart from this framework." Sibal also highlighted challenges surrounding Waqf-by-user, noting that requiring identification of the original creator is problematic, particularly for centuries-old properties. If the creator's details are not provided, the Muttawalli now faces up to six months' imprisonment. Another contentious issue raised was the amendment's impact on religious structures declared as protected monuments under the AMASR Act. Sibal argued that the law invalidates Waqf declarations for such properties, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. Citing the Delhi Jama Masjid as an example, he said the mosque continues to function as a Waqf despite being a protected monument. The hearing will continue on Wednesday, with further arguments expected from both sides.
United News of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
Waqf law: Strong case needed to stay law, says SC
New Delhi, May 20, (UNI) In a significant hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court examined petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 for over three hours, focusing primarily on the issue of interim relief. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard arguments centred on whether to grant a stay on the amended law. During the session, CJI Gavai emphasised that a "very strong and glaring case" must be made out for any statute to be stayed. 'There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, a very strong case is required. Otherwise, this presumption will prevail,' the CJI observed. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, asserted that the 2025 amendments posed an imminent threat of "irreparable injury" if implemented. He claimed the petitioners had a solid prima facie case against the amendments. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, requested the court to limit the hearing to three specific issues, as identified by the previous bench on April 16. He noted that the petitioners' written submissions exceeded this scope. 'The court had confined the hearing to three issues. We submitted our response accordingly. However, the petitioners have now broadened the scope. My affidavit addresses only those three issues,' SG Mehta argued. In response, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed any narrowing of the hearing. Sibal contended that no such restriction was placed by the court in its earlier order, stating that the nature of the challenge required a comprehensive hearing. CJI Gavai remarked that the bench would proceed based on the court record and invited Sibal to begin his submissions. Opening his arguments, Sibal strongly criticized the 2025 amendments, stating that they were intended to "capture Waqfs" by granting government officers quasi-judicial powers. He objected to the provision that allows a government official to decide whether Waqf land is encroaching on state property a move he called unconstitutional. He further argued that the amendments nullified the principle of 'once a Waqf, always a Waqf.' Under earlier laws, non-registration of Waqf properties did not affect their validity, and only resulted in penalties for the caretaker (Muttawalli). But under the new law, non-registration could strip a property of its Waqf status entirely. The bench noted this submission, stating, "From 1913 to 2023, though registration of Waqf was mandated, no serious consequences followed except removal of the Muttawalli. The 2025 amendments depart from this framework." Sibal also highlighted challenges surrounding Waqf-by-user, noting that requiring identification of the original creator is problematic, particularly for centuries-old properties. If the creator's details are not provided, the Muttawalli now faces up to six months' imprisonment. Another contentious issue raised was the amendment's impact on religious structures declared as protected monuments under the AMASR Act. Sibal argued that the law invalidates Waqf declarations for such properties, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. Citing the Delhi Jama Masjid as an example, he said the mosque continues to function as a Waqf despite being a protected monument. The hearing will continue on Wednesday, with further arguments expected from both sides.
Hans India
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
SC agrees to hear next week plea for removal of derogatory social media posts against judiciary
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to list next week a plea seeking removal of derogatory social media posts directed towards the judiciary after BJP Lok Sabha member Nishikant Dubey made deplorable remarks regarding the top court and the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The petitioner's counsel mentioned the matter before a Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai for an urgent hearing. The lawyer said that after the legislator made comments targeting the top court, social media platforms were flooded with derogatory and contemptuous posts against the judiciary. He said, 'Letters were sent to the Attorney General and Solicitor General for giving consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the MP (Nishikant Dubey). No action is being taken by the government. Please give direction to social media platforms to remove videos, etc.' After hearing the submission, the Justice Gavai-led Bench agreed to list the plea for hearing next week. A day before, the Justice Gavai-led Bench told a lawyer that consent of the Attorney General (AG) of India, the highest law officer of the Centre, would be needed to initiate contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey. "Make a case before the AG. He will give permission. You file it (criminal contempt plea). For filing, you don't require our permission," it remarked. Under Section 15 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Supreme Court may initiate criminal contempt on a motion made by a private complainant only after obtaining the written consent of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. Amid ongoing hearings on the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Dubey questioned the judiciary's role in legislative matters, suggesting that if courts assume the task of lawmaking, the existence of Parliament becomes redundant. Dubey's comments targeting the Supreme Court have drawn significant attention, particularly, the word 'anarchy'' which he has used and "inciting religious wars". The controversy has sparked political debate, with Opposition parties like the Congress accusing the BJP of attempting to undermine the judiciary. During the hearings, the Central government assured the Supreme Court that it would not de-notify provisions related to 'Waqf-by-user' or include non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board. This assurance followed the top court's indication that it might consider staying certain parts of the law. Meanwhile, the BJP has disassociated itself from the remarks made by two of its Members of Parliament (MPs) -- Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma – clarifying that these statements were 'personal opinions' and do not reflect the party's stance. In a post on X, BJP chief J.P. Nadda distanced the party from the comments by the MPs. "The BJP has nothing to do with the statements made by BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma on the judiciary and the Chief Justice of the country. These are their personal statements, but the BJP neither agrees with such statements nor does it ever support such statements. The BJP completely rejects these statements," J.P. Nadda said. The party reiterated its commitment to accepting judicial orders and suggestions and has instructed its members to refrain from making such statements in the future.
Indian Express
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Waqf Act: In assurance to SC, Centre pauses same provisions it had defended in Parliament
When Opposition members raised objections to the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf boards in states – both in their dissent notes to the Joint Committee of Parliament that discussed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and during the marathon debates on it in Parliament – the Centre had disagreed vehemently. It drew a sharp distinction between religious activity where, it said, no non-Muslim would be involved, and administrative activity of the Waqf boards, adding that the mandate of non-Muslims there was only to ensure proper functioning of Waqf charities. However, when the Supreme Court raised questions over the same issue during a hearing against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, the Centre agreed to pause any appointment to the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf boards till May 5 – the next date of the Court hearing. Similarly, the Centre undertook in the Court that the character of no Waqf property, including 'Waqf-by-user', whether declared by notification or by registration, would be changed till May 5. Again, this was in contrast to the Centre's dismissal of the Opposition's concerns over denotification of Waqf-by-user properties, during the debate in Parliament. Instead, the Modi government had flagged prime properties allegedly claimed under Waqf, with Union Minister of Minority Affairs Kiren Rijiju mentioning 123 such premises in the national capital. In the parliamentary panel which took up the Waqf Bill, 12 Opposition MPs – Arvind Sawant (Shiv Sena -UBT), Kalyan Bannerjee (Trinamool Congress), Mohammad Nadimul Haque (TMC), the DMK's A Raja and M M Abdullah, Sanjay Singh (Aam Aadmi Party), Mohibbullah Nadvi (Samajwadi Party), the Congress's Syed Naseer Hussain, Mohammad Jawed, Imran Masood and Gaurav Gogoi, and Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM) – had flagged in their dissent notes the provisions in the legislation for inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf bodies and the rejection of Waqf-by-user practice. During the debate on the Bill in the Lok Sabha, Congress general secretary K C Venugopal questioned the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards, while giving the examples of the Vaishno Devi Temple Act and Devaswom Board in Kerala which keep out non-Hindus under certain conditions. Waqf properties were as religious as temple trusts, Venugopal said. Defending the new composition plans for Waqf boards, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said: 'The Opposition is spreading the misconception that this Bill is an interference in the religious activities of Muslims and the property donated by them… The government does not want to interfere in the religious activities of Muslim brothers and the trusts associated with their donations… No non-Islamic member will get a place in the Waqf board's work related to religious donations. Work of non-Muslim members, appointed on the Waqf board or its premises, will not be related to religious activities.' However, he said, '… it will definitely have to be seen whether the property of Waqf is being maintained properly or not'. Significantly, during the hearing on the matter in the apex court, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna raised this issue, saying: 'Are you suggesting that minorities, including Muslims, should also be included in boards managing Hindu religious institutions? Please state that openly.' Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's suggestion that even the Bench should not be hearing the case by that logic attracted a sharp response from the Court, with the CJI saying the Bench lost its religion the moment it sat in judgment. On Waqf-by-user, Congress MP Naseer Hussain said in the Rajya Sabha, 'India is an ancient country… This is not just about masjids, but temples, gurudwaras, churches… If you ask about documents for 400-, 500-, 600-year-old buildings, where will people get them from? The proof is that communities believe that those properties exist even today and they are in long usage.' During the hearing on the matter, CJI Khanna acknowledged the difficulty about presenting documents regarding pre-colonial buildings, and said that while there might be misuse of some Waqf-by-user properties, there were genuine ones too. 'Now the fact of the matter is, before the British came, we did not have any registration of property… Many of the masjids may have been constructed in the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th centuries. To require them to produce a registered sale deed will be impossible,' the CJI said. The Solicitor General argued that 'nothing prevented them (the Waqf users) from going and getting (properties) registered after 1923'. 'It was mandatory.' The Court observed further that the Act had good as well as questionable provisions, and it did not wish to stay it entirely. Mehta then agreed on the government's behalf to pause appointments to boards and any denotification of Waqf-by-user till the Court heard the matter next.
