Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih have adjourned the hearing till tomorrow.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih have adjourned the hearing till tomorrow.
The Union Government which was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the court to confine the hearing to three specific issues for the purpose of granting interim relief. The opposition lawyers including senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed this argument demanding a comprehensive review of the matter. The three specific issues include whether properties declared as waqf by courts can be denotified, the legality of waqf-by-user, and waqf-by-deed.
In response to the petitioner's claims, the Union government assured the court that no appointments would be made to the board until the matter is pending in court. It also provided assurances that those properties declared as waqf by the user would remain so until the next hearing.
The petitioners have raised concerns over the inclusion of non-muslims in the board which they argue would reduce the religious autonomy of the board. They also raised questions over the power of district collectors over disputed waqf properties. While presenting the argument, Sibal said that, 바카라The officer conducting the enquiry is a government officer. He effectively acts as a judge in his own cause.바카라 He also asserted that the law does not not lay down a proper procedure for the enquiry conducted by the designated officer to determine whether a property is waqf or government-owned.
Sibal also argued that if the law is not stayed then it can cause 바카라irreparable damage.바카라 The notion of 바카라a Muslim has to prove that he is a Muslim to dedicate his property as waqf, and a district collector decides if a property is waqf or government property. The damage would be irreparable,바카라 he said.
Senior advocate Abishek Manu Singhvi also argued for the petitioners stating that requesting for proof of one바카라s faith is discrimination on the ground of religion under Article 15. The petitioners also claimed that the requirement to prove one is a practising Muslim directly violates Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion.
Sibal compared how other religious endowments like Hindu, Sikh are run by the members of the same faith. The meaning of secularism is to allow religious communities to run their own affairs.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi argued that "The expression 'practice of islam for 5 years' and aspect of contrivance. In another endowment, for a temple, there is no requirement to prove I am practicing the religion for a certain time... Is there an ascertainable principle to determine if I practice Islam? Can someone ask me, do you pray 5 times a day and thus I will stop from making a waqf? Then someone will ask me if I drink.. is that how it will be judged? Similar to the contrivance part which is sought to be proven."