Petitioners challenging the Waqf law requires ‘strong and shiny’ case for interim relief India news

admin7 hours ago

0 2 5 minutes read

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the petitioners that challenging the recently passed Waqf laws to come up with the “strong and shiny” case for interim relief.“Constitutionality is estimated in favor of every law. For interim relief, you have to make a very strong and fantastic case. Otherwise, constitutionality would be estimated, “CJI said that when senior advocate Kapil Sibal accused the law, he started his presentations.During the hearing, the bench of CJI Br Gavai and Justice Augustine George Maasih was asked by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to limit the proceedings identified by the earlier bench.

One of the issues has the power to represent assets declared as Waqf by the courts, Waqf-by-User or Waqf.
The second issue is related to the composition of the State Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they should only operate Muslims except former officials,
The final one is more than a provision that the Waqf will not be considered as Waqf to wake the property when the collector conducts an inquiry to find out whether the property is government land.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Kapil Sibal and Abhayashak Manu Singhvi led the charge against the law.

What is sibal here and here Singhvi Told the top court:

Sibal described the law as a “full departure from historical legal and constitutional principles” and described the means of “a means of catching the waqf through a non-judicial process”.
“This is a case about the systematic capture of Waqf properties. The government cannot decide which issues can be raised,” Sibal said.
Sibal said that the amended law enables a systematic expulsion of Waqf properties through executive means, bypassing the judicial process and moreover, Waqf properties can become non-wax-walf, even by an executive order, which denies the right to reach courts by aggressive parties.
He said, “Waqf is the dedication of the qualities of ‘Allah’ by Waqf and the concept is that once Waqf is always in danger by a Waqf 2025 law,” he said. Earlier laws on this subject, he said, protected the properties and the present intended to take them away.
He also flagged the weakening of Muslim representation on the Central Waqf Council, claiming the revised law now allows the majority of non-Muslim members-a Stark departure from the backward criteria. “Earlier, board members were elected and they were completely Muslims. Now they are all enrolled. There will be 11 members, and can be 7 non-Muslims. It is a violation of Article 25 and 26. The management is to be done by the community,” Sibal said.
Comparing this with religious settlement boards for Hindus and Sikhs, Sibal said that even former officers and members of the board were in those contexts with the same belief, and the Waqf boards should not be separated. “This is not secularism. Waqf creation is a religious work,” he said.
On the other hand, Singhvi questioned the provision that says that for the last five years, a person practicing Islam can only create a Waqf. Calling it “arbitrary and endless”, Singhvi said that no other religion was subject to such a burden.
Expressing concern about Section 3 (C), he said that once a property was declared non-wakef, access to legal measures was practically closed, the beneficiaries were locked in the “vicious cycle”.
Responding to the presentation of the Center that a law passed by the Parliament could not usually be placed, Singhvi said that farm laws stopped by the top court.
On the argument of the center of “1600% increase” in Waqf properties after the 2013 amendment, Singhvi stated that the growth was due to digitization and listing processes, not new acquisitions.
senior counsel Rajiv DhawanRepresenting another petitioner, the law was “attack on secularism and cultural autonomy”.

The Center defends the law in SC, Waqf says internal intermittentlyMeanwhile, the Center defended the newly enacted Waqf laws, arguing that Waqf is a secular concept from its nature and should not be subject to living due to the estimate of constitutionality that supports all laws passed by Parliament.

In a written presentation presented in the bench by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Center addressed the concerns raised by the court earlier and clarified that the purpose of the law is only to regulate the secular management of Waqf properties, while continuing to protect religious freedom.
The Center said that there is no immediate national crisis that needs to be stayed on the law.
“It is a settled legal status that constitutional courts usually do not stop statutory provisions, whether directly or indirectly. Such cases are to be resolved through final decisions. The laws enacted by Parliament are an estimate of constitutionality,” submitting.
Challenging the request of the petitioners for a stay, the government stated that it would be unfair and potentially disruptive to apply a stay in such an early stage, without concrete allegations or without documented violations of fundamental rights.
Unlike the claims of the petitioners, the Center insisted that there was no compelling urge to suspend the law, especially when any dispute arising during its application could be addressed through appropriate judicial channels.
The government also opposed the recognition of the unregistered WAQF by the user, given that in such a way that Waqfs Emerged during a time when formal records were unusual. It argued that interference in the provision of law limiting protection to registered WAQFS would weaken legislative intentions and lead anomalies.
The Center warned that allowing unregistered WAQFS through interim judicial orders will reward those who have defined legal requirements for more than a century, given that non-regulation has always been a punishable offense. It states that such a migration will effectively legalize these Waqf, which are prohibited under the current law.
This further cited the report of the WAQF inquiry committee of 1976, which deliberately highlighted the efforts by some WAQFs to avoid registration, which led to a hindrance in the proper administration.
Additionally, the Center said that WAQF recognition by the user is not a fundamental right, but a statutory provision. Since the rights are provided by the law, it can also be withdrawn by law, especially when social requirements develop
On the issue of Waqf Institution Composition, the government clarified that four out of 22 non-Muslim members can now be included in the Central Waqf Council. Similarly, three out of eleven in state Waqf boards may be non-Muslim members. It was emphasized that Muslims still maintain majority control, and the purpose of incorporating non-Muslims is to promote transparency and inclusion, given that Waqf cases can affect people of all religions.