The Supreme Court of India will continue hearing a batch of
petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act,
2025 on Thursday. The Act, which was recently passed by Parliament and received
the assent of President Droupadi Murmu on April 5, has sparked significant
legal and political debate.
Key Concerns Raised by the Supreme Court
During Wednesday’s hearing, a bench comprising Chief Justice
Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan raised three major
concerns regarding the Waqf Amendment Act:
- Validity
of Waqf by User Properties: The court questioned how properties
declared as Waqf by user, particularly those that were recognised by court
decrees, may now be rendered void under the new amendments.
- Non-Muslim
Majority in Waqf Council: The bench expressed concerns about the
possibility of having non-Muslims as majority members in the Waqf Council.
- Pending
Enquiry on Disputed Waqf Properties: There was also concern about
properties under dispute, with the declaration that they may no longer be
treated as Waqf properties.
No Interim Order Yet, Centre Opposes Suggestions
Despite the court’s willingness to issue a notice and pass a
short order, the Centre and several states requested more time to present their
submissions before any interim order was passed. The court has scheduled the
next hearing for Thursday at 2 pm.
One of the key issues discussed was the fate of properties
declared as Waqf, including those recognised as Waqf by user. The court
proposed an order to maintain the status of these properties until the matter
is resolved, but the Centre opposed this, arguing that further discussions were
needed before such a directive could be issued.
Concerns Over Waqf by User
The concept of “Waqf by user” refers to properties that have
been used for religious or charitable purposes for an extended period, without
a formal declaration of Waqf. The court questioned how such properties would be
registered under the new provisions, considering the difficulty of providing
documentation for long-established properties.
Justice Khanna noted, "Waqf by user is recognised... if
you undo it, it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment,
order, or decree as void." This raised concerns that the amendments could
potentially undo long-standing judicial decisions.
Centre’s Opposition to Waqf by User and Other Concerns
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre,
defended the amendments, arguing that the new law aimed to resolve longstanding
issues in the Waqf sector. However, the court expressed skepticism about the
implications of the Act on Muslim communities, particularly regarding the
regulation of Waqf properties and the ability of non-Muslims to participate in
Waqf-related matters.
The court asked the Centre, "Are you saying that from
now on you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards?" This
question reflected the court’s broader concerns about the potential for
religious discrimination under the new law.
Political and Legal Implications of the Act
The Waqf (Amendment) Act has generated significant political
and legal debate. Several petitions have been filed against the law, including
by leaders and organizations such as AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, the All
India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), and others. The Centre, which
recently passed the law, has faced criticism from opposition parties, who argue
that it could be divisive and undermine religious freedom.
The law was passed in Parliament after heated debates, with
support from the ruling BJP but opposition from parties like Congress, DMK, and
others. The bill received approval in the Rajya Sabha with 128 votes in favor
and 95 against, while in the Lok Sabha, 288 members voted in favor and 232
against.
Next Steps and Future Hearings
As the hearing continues on Thursday, the Supreme Court is
expected to delve deeper into the constitutional validity of the Waqf
(Amendment) Act, 2025, and its potential impact on Muslim communities and
religious practices in India. The petitions challenging the law are likely to
continue shaping the legal discourse on religious endowments and property
rights.