Latest news with #Waqfs
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.
India Gazette
20-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Waqf Act designed to 'capture Waqf properties' through a process which is non-judicial, petitioners tell SC
New Delhi [India], May 20 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday was told by petitioners challenging the Constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, that the Act has been framed to protect Waqfs but in reality, it is designed to 'capture Waqfs' through a process which is non judicial. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioners, objected to the provision empowering a government Officer to decide disputes about whether Waqf properties have encroached on government land. He said that private properties are being taken away only because of dispute. 'A officer above Collector is appointed to see the dispute, and meanwhile till the dispute is decided, the property is taken away and loses its character as a Waqf property,' Sibal argued. A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing the arguments on interim relief in the case. The senior advocate further told the bench that the 2025 amendments nullified the principle 'once a Waqf, always a Waqf.' Sibal contended that earlier, though the property was preserved as an ancient monument the identity of the property did not change from being a Waqf and get transferred to the government. 'Now such Waqf property shall be void, and once Waqf is void, people will be stopped from going to pray. The right to freely practice religious activity is curtailed,' contended Sibal. To this, CJI said that people still go and pray at Khajurao temple though it is preserved as an ancient monument. He further argued that under the previous law, non-registration of the Waqf properties did not affect the validity of the Waqfs and the only consequence was that the Muttawalli would have to pay some penalty. 'However, the 2025 amendment makes a complete departure to state that if there was no registration, the Waqf will no longer be recognised,' he added. Next, Sibal objected to the provisions allowing the nomination of non-Muslims to the Central Waqf Council and the state Waqf Boards. He further pointed out that in none of the laws relating to Hindu endowments, persons from other religions are allowed. On the Centre's stand that the 2025 amendments are to regulate the secular aspects of property administration, Sibal said the creation of Waqf is not a secular activity. 'It is a Muslim's property which he dedicates to God,' he added. Senior advocates Rajeev Dhawan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, CU Singh also argued for the petitioners. The bench will continue hearing the arguments of Centre. The previous bench headed by the then CJI Sanjiv khanna had said it will consider three issues for interim relief -- de-notifying Waqf properties whether they are Waqf by deed or Waqf by user, nomination of non-Muslims to the Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards and identification of government land under Waqf. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had earlier assured the apex court that the three key provisions of the Waqf Act will not be given effect to for some time. Solicitor General of India had also given an assurance that no appointments will be made to the Waqf Council or Waqf boards. A batch of petitions challenging the Act was filed before the apex court contending that it was discriminatory towards Muslim community and violates their fundamental rights. Six Bhartiya Janta Party-ruled states had also moved the apex court in the matter, in support of the amendment. President Droupadi Murmu on April 5 gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was earlier passed by Parliament after heated debates in both Houses. Central government had filed its preliminary affidavit in the Supreme Court while seeking dismissal of petitions challenging constitutional validity of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 as it said law was not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Centre in its affidavit had said the amendments are only for the regulation of the secular aspect regarding the management of the properties and hence, there was no violation of the religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Central government had urged the court not to stay any provisions of the Act said that it is a settled position in law that constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision, either directly or indirectly, and will decide the matter finally. (ANI)
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.
Mint
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Pleas against Waqf Act in SC: Once a Waqf, always a Waqf, says Kapil Sibal
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal on Tuesday said the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has been framed to protect Waqfs, but in reality, it is designed to capture Waqf through a non-judicial, executive process. According to an ANI report, Sibal, who is representing petitioners challenging the Act in the Supreme Court also said that 'Waqf is an endowment to Allah (god) and pursuant to that, the property cannot be transferred - once a Waqf, always a Waqf.' Sibal also said that 'earlier, though the property was preserved as an ancient monument, the identity of the property did not change from being a Waqf and get transferred to the government. Now, such Waqf property shall be void, and once Waqf is void, people will be stopped from going to pray. The right to freely practice religious activity is curtailed.' The apex court was on Tuesday hearing pleas challenging constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which was notified last month after it got President Droupadi Murmu's assent on April 5. The bill was cleared by Lok Sabha with the support of 288 members while 232 MPs were against it. The Rajya Sabha saw 128 members voting in its favour and 95 against it. The Centre urged the Supreme Court to confine the hearing on pleas challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act for passing interim orders to three issues, including the power to denotify properties declared as 'waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed', the ANI report said. The submission was opposed by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for those challenging the provisions of the 2025 law, that there cannot be any piecemeal hearing, it added. One of the issues is the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed. The second issue raised by the petitioners relates to the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contend only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members. The third issue relates to a provision that says a waqf property will not be treated as a waqf when the collector conducts an inquiry to ascertain if the property is government land.
The Hindu
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
CJI Gavai-led Bench to devote whole of May 20 to hear arguments on interim stay of 2025 waqf amendments
A Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih on Thursday (May 15, 2025) decided to devote an entire day on May 20 to hear arguments for and against an interim order to stay the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Also read: Supreme Court hearing on waqf case highlights - May 15, 2025 Chief Justice Gavai asked the lawyers to come prepared, submit a consolidated note of their submissions and points of law beforehand to ensure that the case is not adjourned. 'We will not take up any other matters on Tuesday (May 20, 2025),' the Chief Justice addressed the lawyers. The Waqf law challenge had come up before the Bench of Chief Justice Gavai for the first time, the very next day after he assumed office as top judge. Both Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, on the petitioners' side, suggested at the beginning of the hearing to schedule it for next week, giving the Bench ample time to study the case papers. The case had last come up before a three-judge Special Bench led by Chief Justice Gavai's predecessor, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, on May 5. Justice Khanna had at the time expressed reluctance to continue hearing the case, saying he had very little time till his retirement on May 13, 2025. The hearing on May 5 was originally scheduled to hear arguments on an interim order to stay the implementation of the 2025 amendments to the Waqf law, which, according to the petitioners, interfered with the right of Muslims to manage their own religious affairs and properties. Prior to May 5, the Bench of Justices Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan had nudged the government on April 17 into coming out with a statement in open court that they would not change the character or alter the status of waqf properties across the country on the basis of these amendments. The Bench had recorded the statement in its April 17 order. The interregnum between the April 17 hearing and May 5 had seen the government file an affidavit in court, highlighting the 'phenomenal increase' in Waqf assets in the decade between 2013 and 2024 while justifying the 2025 amendments as a necessary measure to counter rampant encroachments into government and private properties made in the name of Waqfs. Justice Khanna had opened the May 5 hearing saying the issues raised were serious. He had however said with the little time left in his tenure, he did not want to reserve orders on interim relief. In a clear message, that his successor would take the call on steering the future course of the case. Justice Khanna had posted the case for hearing next on May 15. Over a 100 petitions were initially filed in the case, with many following. This had led the Supreme Court to convert the case into a suo motu one in order to avoid duplicate petitions and repetitive arguments in court. The petitions have argued that the 2025 amendments infringed upon and prejudiced the rights of Muslims across the country. The amendments fundamentally altered the governance, creation, and protection of Waqf properties — Islamic endowments dedicated perpetually to Allah for religious and charitable purposes. The enhanced role of state in the waqf administration impinged on the right of the Muslim community to manage its institutions The petitions have highlighted that amendments omitted the concept of Waqf-by-User affirmed by the Supreme Court itself as a property which would attain the status of waqf through long-standing religious use. Further, an amendment to the composition of the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council has mandated inclusion of non-Muslim members in waqf administrative bodies.
