look news india
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. Both sides argued before the two -member bench headed by Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai. Meanwhile, after hearing the arguments of the two sides, the court made important remarks that, ‘The laws passed by the Parliament are enacted within the limits of the Constitution and until a concrete issue arises that the law is not constitutional, the courts cannot interfere in it.’
The Central Government has requested the Supreme Court to issue an interim order to limit the hearing of the petitions challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, which includes the power of boards to non-obliged Waqf properties. On behalf of the Center, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made this request before the bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Christ. ‘The court identified three issues. However, the petitioners believe that apart from these three issues, many other issues should also be heard. I have filed my affidavit in response to these three issues. I request that it be limited to just three points. This argument was given by Tushar Mehta.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the petitioners challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, opposed the Center’s argument that laws could not be heard in pieces. Kapil Sibal argued that the amended law violates Article 25 of the Constitution (this guarantees the right to follow, propagate and disseminate the article religion). We will argue all the points. This is a matter of occupying the entire Waqf property. Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court that a hearing should be held in this case regarding issuing an interim order. He said that this law is unconstitutional and takes control and ownership of Waqf property.
What are the three issues on which the center is demanding a hearing?
One of the three issues is the right to cancel the Waqf by the court, the user’s Waqf, or the document declared by the document. The second issue raised by the petitioners is related to the structure of the State Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council, where they argue that these bodies should only have Muslim members, except ex -officio members. The third point is related to the provision according to which when the collector investigates to find out whether any land declared is a government property or not, the property will not be considered as Waqf until the investigation report is received.
Why did Sibal mention Babri in the Supreme Court?
Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court that hearing should be held on issuing an interim order in this case. He said that this law is unconstitutional and the vaqf controls and encroachs. The amended law provides that the property to be donated will be investigated in case of any dispute. District Collector will investigate. There is no time limit for inquiry. Until the investigation report comes, the property will not be considered as Waqf. While Waqf property is given in the name of Allah. Once it is received, it becomes permanent. The government cannot provide financial assistance for this. Mosques do not get any donation, Waqf institutions run on donations. The Supreme Court asked whether donations are given to the religious places? On this, Sibal said that I am talking about mosques. The dargah is different. Sibal said that the donations get the temples, not mosques. This is the Waqf done by the user. The Babri Masjid was also similar. Various provisions were made from 1923 to 1954, but the original principles remained the same. Debate on compulsory registration of Waqf properties
Kapil Sibal said that this amendment has been designed to control Waqf through the executive process. Private properties donated to Waqf are being snatched away due to only the possibility of dispute or due to controversy over their ownership. This law is designed to capture Waqf properties. The state cannot fund religious institutions. If there is a mosque or cemetery, the state cannot finance it, all this should be done from private property itself. If you go to the mosque, there is no donation like temples, there are 1000 crores, 2000 crores.
Tamil Actor Wedding: ‘Punnagai Desam’ Star Leo Hamsavirdhan married with model Nimisha
On the argument of Kapil Sibal, Chief Justice BR Gawai said- I also went to the dargah, went to the church… Everyone has (offering money). Sibal said- Dargahs are a separate case, I am talking about mosques. The law of 2025 is completely different from the old law. It has two concepts – Waqf properties created by the user and their dedication. It was also accepted in the Babri Masjid case. Many user-made Waqf were created hundreds of years ago. where will they go? The Chief Justice asked- Is registration necessary in the previous law? Sibal said- Yes .. It was said that it will be registered. The Chief Justice asked- In terms of information, we are asking whether the provision of registration of Waqf property was mandatory under the old law or was it just a instruction to do so?
