18
Supreme Court: On behalf of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal cited the Waqf Amendment Act and said that he is challenging the provision that it has been said that only Muslims can Waqf.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Center during the hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 whether Muslims would be allowed to be part of Hindu religious trusts. A bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan asked the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Center, how “Waqf” by the user could be rejected as many people will not have documents to register such walls.
What did the court say on misuse?
“Waqf” refers to a practice by the user, in which a property in the form of religious or charitable settlement (Waqf) is given on the basis of long -term, uninterrupted use for his purposes, even if there is no formal, written announcement of Waqf by the owner. The bench said, “How will you register such Waqf by the user?” What documents will they have? This will make something undone. Yes, there is some misuse. But they are also real. I have also read the decisions of the Privy Council. Waqf is recognized by the user. If you undo it, it will be a problem. The legislature cannot declare any decision, order or decree zero. You can only take Aadhaar. ”
A large section does not want to accept this law
Mehta said that a large section of Muslims does not want to be ruled under the Waqf Act. The bench then asked Mehta, “Are you saying that from now on, you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu Entrance Board.” Say it openly. ”The Supreme Court said that when a public trust was declared Waqf 100 or 200 years ago, it could not be taken under the Waqf Board and could not be declared otherwise. The bench said, “You cannot write the past again.”
Parliamentary Joint Committee held 38 meetings, 98.2 lakh memorandum investigation
Mehta said that the Joint Parliamentary Committee held 38 meetings and investigated 98.2 lakh memorandum before it was passed by both houses of Parliament. Chief Justice Khanna also said that a High Court can be asked to consider these petitions. He said, “There are two aspects on which we want to talk to both sides.” First of all, should we consider it or be handed over to the High Court? Second, briefly explain what you are really insisting and what you want to argue? We are not saying that there is any stay on the Supreme Court in hearing the petitions against the law and taking decisions.
What questions did Kapil Sibal ask?
On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocate Kapil Sibal cited the Waqf Amendment Act and said that he is challenging the provision that only Muslims can wow. Sibal asked, “How can the government decide whether I am a Muslim or not, and therefore eligible to Waqf or not?” He said, “The government can say that only those people who have been following Islam for the last five years?” Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who represents some petitioners, said that the effect of the Waqf Act will not be in the entire India.
Opposing the Waqf Act, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi said that Waqf by the user is an established practice of Islam and it cannot be taken away. The Center recently notified the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which was approved by President Draupadi Murmu on April 5 after passing from Parliament after a sharp debate in both houses. In the Rajya Sabha, 128 members voted in favor of the bill and 95 members in protest.
72 petitions filed to challenge the validity of the Act
At the same time, 288 votes were cast in the Lok Sabha and 232 votes in protest. In this way it was passed from both houses. 72 petitions including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, Dravida Munnetra Kashagam (DMK), Congress MPs Imran Pratapgarhi and Mohammad Javed have been filed to challenge the validity of the Act.
On April 8, the Center filed a ‘cavity’ in the Supreme Court and appealed for a hearing before passing any order in the case. To ensure that a party is filed in the High Courts and the Supreme Court that no order is passed without hearing its side.
Also read .. Buldozer had raised the question on action, now the new CJI of the country, who is Justice BR Gawai?
