New Delhi: Two days after the Waqf (Amendment) Act came into force, its constitutional validity was challenged on Monday by DMK, Maulana Arshad Madni of Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Samastha Kerala Jamithul Ulema. Petitions mainly object to ‘Waqf users’ provisions ‘provisions’ and allegedly “allegedly” from Waqf management of Muslims “from Waqf management.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and a Singhvi, who appeared for Madani and Kerala Islamic Body, requested a bench under the leadership of CJI Sanjeev Khanna for immediate hearing. CJI, although ‘no mention for immediate listing’ stuck to the rule, stated that the petitions would be listed soon, there is a possibility by Friday.
Expanding its objections to the amendments made in the 2013 WAQF Act, the Kerala’s organization stated that the change “display a patent discrimination against Muslims on the basis of religion, excluding them out of excluding the meaningful administration of a unit which is the creation of their much religion.”
The board of involvement of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Auqaf’s board demonstrated the “deep lack of trust in part of MLAs” in all Muslim councils and boards and said this to complete the duties and tasks of the two bodies.
Criticizing the provision that collectors are allowed to be questioned in the nature of the Waqf property to determine whether this is the government, the Kerala body said that it created a situation where the government “became a judge in its own reason,” and such investigation expected the fair to be “foggy and distance”.
DMK MP A Raja, who was part of the JPC on the Waqf Bill, argued that the changes violated the fundamental rights of the Muslim community.
Madani’s petition filed through Fuzel Ahmed Ayubi postponed the implementation of the amended Act, called it disastrous of the centuries -old Waqf tradition.
AIMPLB stated that changes reflected the government’s intentions to control the control of the administration of Waqf in violation of constitutional rights of the minority community under Article 25 and 26, to manage their own settlements. It said that a person’s requirement required to be a lawforph (donor) for five years Article 14 (right to equality – no member of other religions is subject to such a situation), and Islamic Sharia principles were violated.
