Waqf Amendment Act Challenge : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Hearing On Interim Order]

SG Mehta: the bold assertion was it will be stopped being used as religious place- 1904 Ancient Monument Preservation Act ....

CJI reads what was record- these sections were not circulated and no discussion in the parliament

SG Mehta: I will show in JPC report- 3(D) was in fact suggested by JPC

SG Mehta: Sibal said Section 3(D) and (E) was not before JPC

Sibal: I said it was not circulated in the JPC

SG Mehta: it was unfair to argue other points by the petitioner..see Section 3(D)- ancient monuments- this was not supposed to be argued. My affidavit is confined to waqf by user, government property and the appointments

SG Mehta: Seshammal & Ors, Etc. Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu- appointed of archuka is a secular function

SG Mehta: Mahant of a mutt- the State Board can remove him on grounds that he is not discharging his religious functions

SG Mehta: I will tell- why not for Hindus- Hindu religious endowment acts deal with religious acts while waqf deals with other activities. the former deals with temple- we feel the control is too pervasive- under serious challenge-the activities they do going to the temple etc

SG Mehta: Dargah Committee judgment- whatever offering comes used to be taken by one set of people by Act was deleted- Court said it can be deleted

SG Mehta: Pannalal Bansilal Pitti & Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh says comparison is not possible

SG Mehta: this comparision why not for Hindus or Christians is by principle bad, when Hindu Code Bill came, personal rights were taken away- No arguments were raised because Muslims were governed by their Shariah Act

SG Mehta: record keeping functions, register of waqf, issue registration certificate, litigant related functions, general regulatory functions- these are duties of mutawalli

S. 64 deals with his removal for misconduct-convicted, unsound mind etc- Board can remove him