New Delhi:
The SG said that there was no basis for the possibility of a fresh investigation of ‘Waqf’ by the user properties. It was only meant to enable Muslims who had already created a trust for donations, making sure that their properties would not be considered as vaqf property, they said. CJI said, “Before coming to the British India, there was no concept to register properties on transfer. How would a person produce a documentary evidence of Waqf if it was done during the 14th to 19th century. The Jama Masjid can be ‘Waqf’ by the user in Delhi.
Mehta said Muslim donation commissioner Can enter temples and enter temples. He said, “The Tamil Nadu government says that it can appoint the Archka (Pujay) and the court approved saying that it is a secular work of the government,” he said, “It is the administration of assets. Nothing is to be done with religious matters of Muslims.”
The bench said that by the time a non-Muslim former officer was limited to the post of member, it was fine. “But as far as other members are concerned, it may not be that out of 22 members in the council, there are only eight Muslims,” the CJI said.
The SG said the issue was raised before the Joint Parliamentary Committee and it was clearly clarified by the minister that two out of the 22 members would be non-Muslim in two councils.
“The provisions are now inclusive because membership has been expanded to include all the categories of Muslims, which was previously limited to Shia and Sunnis. Between the members, there should be two women, so it has become even more inclusive,” Mehta said. The bench said that it was a positive development.
Mehta also said that the apprehension of SC of immediate restructuring of the council and boards said that the current body would continue till the end of their tenure. He said that interestingly, among 150 petitioners, not a single board claimed to SC that it was influenced by changes in the Waqf Act.
At one point, SC gave the option to send all petitions to SC and send an HC before HCS. But the Muslim side opposed this and said that the issue needs to be postponed as soon as possible. The SG said that the court issued a notice to the union government, which would respond in detail. However, when SC intended to determine an interim order, Mehta and Dwivedi successfully opposed it by demanding the argument to carry forward.
