NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a batch of petitions against the Waqf (Amendment) Act and various points of contention concerning the law, including " waqf by user ", inclusion of non-Muslims on the board and also the violence in Bengal's Murshidabad that broke out during the protest against the law.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna-led bench, which included Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta , appearing for the Centre, on how "waqf by user" can be disallowed as many will not have the requisite documents to get such waqfs registered.
The phrase "Waqf by user" refers to land or property that has been treated as waqf over time through continuous public or religious use, even if no formal waqf deed exists.
What did SC say?
"How will you register such waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment, order or decree as void. You can only take the basis," the bench said, according to news agency PTI.
"The properties declared by courts as waqfs should not be de-notified as waqfs, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed, while the court is hearing the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025," the bench added.
Mehta submitted that there was a large section of Muslims who did not want to be governed by Waqf act.
The bench then asked Mehta, "Are you saying that from now on you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards. Say it openly."
The apex court said that when a public trust was declared to be a Waqf 100 or 200 years ago, it couldn't suddenly be taken over by the waqf board and declared otherwise.
"You cannot rewrite the past," the bench said.
Mehta submitted that a joint parliamentary committee had 38 sittings and examined 98.2 lakh memorandums before Parliament's both houses passed it.
On Bengal violence
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the violence occurring during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is "very disturbing".
"One thing that is very disturbing is the violence that is taking place. If the matter is pending here then it should not happen," the CJI said.
Echoing a similar sentiment, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, "They (protesters) think they can pressurise the system by this."
At least three people were killed and hundreds were rendered homeless in communal violence in parts of Murshidabad district, mainly Suti, Samserganj, Dhulian and Jangipur, on April 11 and 12 during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
'Waqf by user is an established practice of Islam'
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, opposing Waqf Act, said Waqf by user was an established practice of Islam and couldn't be taken away.
Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners referred to Waqf Amendment Act and said was challenging the provision that says only Muslims could create Waqf.
"How can state decide whether, and how I am a Muslim or not and hence, eligible to create Waqf?" Sibal asked.
He added, "How can government say only those who are practising Islam for last five years can create Waqf?"
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who represented some of the petitioners, submitted that Waqf Act would have all India ramifications and pleas should not be referred to the high court.
The bench on Wednesday did not issue a formal notice and said it would resume hearing on the petitions at around 2 pm on April 17.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna-led bench, which included Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta , appearing for the Centre, on how "waqf by user" can be disallowed as many will not have the requisite documents to get such waqfs registered.
The phrase "Waqf by user" refers to land or property that has been treated as waqf over time through continuous public or religious use, even if no formal waqf deed exists.
What did SC say?
"How will you register such waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment, order or decree as void. You can only take the basis," the bench said, according to news agency PTI.
"The properties declared by courts as waqfs should not be de-notified as waqfs, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed, while the court is hearing the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025," the bench added.
Mehta submitted that there was a large section of Muslims who did not want to be governed by Waqf act.
The bench then asked Mehta, "Are you saying that from now on you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards. Say it openly."
The apex court said that when a public trust was declared to be a Waqf 100 or 200 years ago, it couldn't suddenly be taken over by the waqf board and declared otherwise.
"You cannot rewrite the past," the bench said.
Mehta submitted that a joint parliamentary committee had 38 sittings and examined 98.2 lakh memorandums before Parliament's both houses passed it.
On Bengal violence
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the violence occurring during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is "very disturbing".
"One thing that is very disturbing is the violence that is taking place. If the matter is pending here then it should not happen," the CJI said.
Echoing a similar sentiment, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, "They (protesters) think they can pressurise the system by this."
At least three people were killed and hundreds were rendered homeless in communal violence in parts of Murshidabad district, mainly Suti, Samserganj, Dhulian and Jangipur, on April 11 and 12 during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act.
'Waqf by user is an established practice of Islam'
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, opposing Waqf Act, said Waqf by user was an established practice of Islam and couldn't be taken away.
Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners referred to Waqf Amendment Act and said was challenging the provision that says only Muslims could create Waqf.
"How can state decide whether, and how I am a Muslim or not and hence, eligible to create Waqf?" Sibal asked.
He added, "How can government say only those who are practising Islam for last five years can create Waqf?"
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who represented some of the petitioners, submitted that Waqf Act would have all India ramifications and pleas should not be referred to the high court.
The bench on Wednesday did not issue a formal notice and said it would resume hearing on the petitions at around 2 pm on April 17.
You may also like
Darwin archives, Geneva Conventions now part of UNESCO's Memory of the World Register
CBI Arrests Former BECIL CMD And GM In ₹3 Crore Bribery, ₹50 Crore Loan Fraud Case
Delhi court sentences man to life for raping, impregnating minor; verdict delivered within 20 days
Perishers - 19th April 2025
Stained socks, towels and bedding will turn 'whiter and cleaner' if you use 1 natural item
