Quick reed
Summary AI is born, the news room has been reviewed.
The Center defended the Waqf Amendment Act in the Supreme Court, stating that Waqf is not necessary for Islam and is to emphasize its secular functions.
New Delhi:
Waqf is an Islamic concept, but it is not an essential part of Islam, the Center today told the Supreme Court that defending the Waqf Amendment Act today protested and inspired a legal challenge. “Waqf is an Islamic concept, there is no doubt about it, but it is not an essential part of Islam. Waqf is not a fundamental right,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Center.
He said that the government is the patron of the assets of 140 crore citizens and it was the duty of the state to ensure that public property is not diverted illegally. “A false story is created that they have to provide documents, or Waqf is occupied by N Mass.”
Solicitor General Mehta said that Waqf is for charity and the Waqf board only discharge secular functions. Fit on the arguments of the petitioners against the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Waqf bodies, he said, “What will change it will change due to being 2 non-Muslims? It is not touching any religious activity.”
Earlier, Mr. Mehta said that some petitioners cannot claim to represent the entire Muslim community. “We received 96 lakh representatives. JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) used to sit 36. He was repeatedly discussed with JPC. He took various inputs from various Muslim bodies. After this, a voluntary report was submitted, where the suggestions were accepted.
On the subject of ‘Waqf by user’, the Center said that as per the definition, ‘Waqf by user’ means that the property belongs to someone else and you have gained authority with continuous use. “If there is a building that can be government property, can the government not investigate whether the property belongs to the government or not?”
Competitioning the arguments of the petitioners that the government cannot not decide its claim, Mr. Mehta said that the revenue officials will decide that it is government land, but they cannot decide the title.
Chief Justice Bra Gavai said, “The picture being depicted is that once the collector conducts an inquiry, the property will be closed as Waqf property and once the investigation is completed, the entire property will be taken by the government.” Mr. Mehta replied that the government would have to file a title suit for ownership.
On the requirement that only one practice Muslim for five years can donate a Waqf, Mr. Mehta said, “Even the Shariah has Section 3 that says you have to install yourself as a Muslim. It does not mean that you have to offer prayers 5 times a day or drink alcohol in some cases.
Distinguishing between Hindu settlement and Waqf, Mr. Mehta said that the control over Hindu settlements is “broad”. He said, “Hindu religious settlements are only religious. But Muslim Waqf includes many secular institutions such as schools, Madras, orphanages, Dharamshalas etc.,” he said.
Citing an example, he said that the Bombay Public Trust Act controls temples in Maharashtra and its president can be of any religion.
Mr. Mehta said that one Waqf has two offices – one of the Sajjadashinas, who is spiritual head and performs religious work, and the other is the office of Mutavalli, the administrator or manager. “Earlier this Waqf is not a matter of case, because this law has nothing to do with religious and spiritual practice.”
Arguing that the law does not move contrary to Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion, the Solicitor General has referred to the Hindu Code Bill of 1956 that codes the Hindu personal laws. “When the Hindu Code Bill came in 1956, individual law rights of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains were taken away. Nobody said why only Muslims were left and why were others?”
The Solicitor General cited the Tamil Nadu Endowment Act that allows the board to remove the Mathdhipati if it violates the office rules. “And here we are arguing whether a subtle minority article in the WAKF board will violate 25, 26?”
What the petitioners have said
Hearing the arguments of the petitioners yesterday, the Chief Justice of India Bra Gavai said that the law estimates the constitutionality that cleans the Parliament and the courts “until a terrible case is made”. The bench also includes Justice AG Masi.
Looking at a petitioner, 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.
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.
