Top News

The debate on the issue of interim stay on the Wakf Amendment Act has been completed in the Supreme Court. During this time, the Central Government has strongly opposed the interim stay on the law. The Supreme Court has reserved its interim order in this matter. During the debate, the Central Government strongly supported the Wakf Act.

 The Supreme Court has reserved its decision after completing the debate on the issue of interim stay on the Wakf Amendment Act. In the three-day debate, the petitioners called the law against the right to religious freedom of Muslims discriminatory and demanded an interim stay, while the central government strongly opposed the interim stay, calling the law correct.

 

 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Central Government, while justifying the provision in the law that the person doing Waqf should be a practicing Muslim for five years, said that even in Sharia law, if a Muslim wants to take advantage of personal law, he has to give a declaration of being a Muslim, the same is there in this law, only it has been said that the person should be a practicing Muslim for five years. Justifying the provision of prohibition of Waqf in notified tribal areas, he said that this has been done keeping in mind the interests of the tribal people.

 

The court heard the arguments for three days

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on behalf of the Central Government, defended the law on Thursday and said that even in the old law, the person doing the Waqf would be a Muslim, but in the 2013 law, the word Muslim was removed and replaced with any person. Now in this new amended law of 2025, it has been changed. Mehta said that only a Muslim will do the Waqf. And if any Hindu wants to donate to the Waqf, he can still do it, there is no restriction on it in the law. If a Hindu wants to build a mosque, he can do so, this can be done through a trust.

 

 

 

Justifying the provision in the law that the person doing the Waqf should be a practicing Muslim for five years, he argued that even in Sharia law, if a Muslim wants to take advantage of the personal law, he has to give a declaration of being a Muslim. Sharia law is about marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. of Muslims. Mehta said that this law (Waqf Amendment Act 2025) also has the same thing, only it has been said to be a practicing Muslim for five years.

 

However, Mehta's argument was opposed by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the lawyer of the petitioner opposing the law. He said that this law cannot be compared to Sharia law. Anyway, in Sharia law we have the option to accept or not accept it. Singhvi said that apart from this, there is no such law that has the condition of being a practicing Muslim for five years. Not only this, such a condition has been kept in this law for Muslims, whereas there is no such condition for the followers of other religions in the laws of other religions, so this provision violates Article 15 of the Constitution.

 

The petitioner gave this argument.

The Solicitor General on behalf of the Central Government justified the provision of not allowing Waqf in notified tribal areas and said that ST scheduled areas have been protected constitutionally. They have been protected for valid reasons. Tribal people have a different culture and this provision has been made to protect their land. But then CJI Gavai said that according to the law, the land of a tribal person remains with him. Mehta said that yes, if someone fraudulently sells the land of a tribal person and gets it registered in his name, then the court can get that land back to the tribal person, but this is not the case in the case of Waqf.

 

The principle of Waqf is that once a Waqf is a Waqf forever. So in such a situation, if the property is Waqfed, it cannot be taken back. Mehta said that tribal people do not believe in Islam the way Islam is understood, their culture is different. On this argument, the second judge of the bench, AG Masih said that Islam is Islam, the religion remains the same, cultural practices can be different. Mehta said that his argument is only that the law cannot be banned on this basis. However, senior advocate Huzaifa Ahmadi, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, opposed the provision of prohibiting Waqf in the notified tribal area and said that this rule discriminates, it ends the right of tribal Muslims living in that area to make Waqf.

 

Demand for interim order on these three issues

During the hearing, when senior advocate Kapil Sibal was giving arguments against the rule of compulsory registration of Waqf by user, CJI BR Gavai told him that it was compulsory to register Waqf under the 1923 law. Then it was compulsory in the 1954 law as well, after that a report of 1976 came in which it was told why it is necessary to register Waqf. Registration was compulsory in the 1995 law as well. Registration has been compulsory for hundred years. The court meant that the rule of registering Waqf is not new.

 

In response to this, Sibal said that according to the 1923 law, the Mutawalli was to be informed, later there was talk of survey and even the survey was not done; if the figures are seen, very few Waqfs are registered.

 

Sibal opposed the government's argument that Waqf is not an integral part of Islam and said that Waqf is an essential part of Islam.

 

Apart from Mehta, some BJP-ruled states also presented their side in support of the law. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said that the Places of Worship Act was frozen in 1991, whereas Wakf by User (Wakf on the basis of use) can continue for more than hundreds of years, while it was acquired through adverse possession, how can it be considered fair.

 

Tushar Mehta also responded to the opposition to the imposition of limitation in the Waqf Act and said that when limitation is applicable in all laws, then why should it not be applicable to Waqf. Ranjit Kumar said that Muslim law says that a person can make a property a Waqf only if that property is his own. But in the old law, the Waqf Board was given the right to declare any property as Waqf and the aggrieved person had to go to the Waqf Tribunal to get it rectified and if no objection was raised, the decision of the Board became final. This has been rectified in this law.

 

A petitioner also approached the Supreme Court against declaring an entire village in Tamil Nadu as Wakf property. He said that the entire village has been declared Wakf and a five thousand year old building built by Chola kings has also been declared Wakf. The court should consider this aspect as well. The court assured to consider the matter.

---