New Delhi:
Constitutionality in the law estimates that Parliament and courts cannot intervene until a spectacular case is made, India’s Chief Justice Bra Gavai today told petitioners challenging the Waqf Amendment Act.
The bench of Chief Justice Gawai and Justice AG Masi was listening to a group of petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, which became a law last month. Earlier, the court had determined three issues-Waqf, non-Muslims by User, WAKF Council and State Waqf boards enrollment and identification of government land under Waqf. The Center then assured that it would work on these matters until the matter is resolved.
When the court met today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the Center had filed its response in these three cases. “However, written presentations of the petitioners now expand on many other issues. My request is to limit it to only three issues,” he said.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, objected to this. “The then CJI (Sanjeev Khanna) said that we will hear the matter and see what is interim relief. Now we cannot capture three issues.” Mr. Singhvi said that the “piece hearing” cannot be.
Mr. Sibal said that the purpose of the Act is to capture the Waqf land. “The law is designed in such a way that the Waqf property is taken away away without following any process.” He also pointed to the condition that only one person who practiced Islam for at least five years can create a Waqf. “If I am on my death and I want to create a Waqf, I have to prove that I have been a practice Muslim. It is unconstitutional,” he said.
As Mr. Sibal reiterated that the purpose of the law was aimed at handling the Waqf properties, the Chief Justice said, “The law passed by the Parliament is estimated to be constitutionality. The courts cannot interfere until a spectacular case is made, especially in the current scenario, we do not need to say much.”
Mr. Sibal said that under the new law, any village panchayat or a private person can increase a complaint and the property stops to be vaqf. “The government official will decide this and there will be a judge for his reason. No question was asked.”
“Please remember that Waqf is about my property. It is only someone owned by someone and it cannot be of the state. Now a lot of property is taken away,” he said.
Shri Sibal also compared between mosques and temples. “Under our Constitution, the state may not possibly provide finance to religious institutions. The state cannot provide finance to a mosque for its maintenance, a buried land is to be made through personal property. So at the end of life, people often dedicate their properties as Waqf. There are no bangles in mosques and 2000-RS in the temples.” When the Chief Justice said that the grant is also given in the dargahs, Mr. Sibal said that he was talking about mosques.
When the court met after a break, Mr. Sibal argued that as soon as a monument is declared “preserved” by the Archaeological Survey of India, it would lose its Waqf position. He said, “This includes Jama Masjid, Sambhal. Therefore, any dispute is raised and the situation of Waqf is gone. It is very disturbing,” he said. He also stated that some sections of the Act were not part of the draft investigated by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, so they were not discussed in Parliament.
