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

SG Mehta: waqf by user- is not a fundamental right. It was recognised by statute- judgment says if right is conferred as legislative policy, the right can always be taken away. That is the proposition.

SG Mehta: this amounts to gov acting in its own cause- revenue officers decide the revenue enteries- similar arguments arose in another judgment- says it must be shown the officer concerned must have personal bias or interest

SG Mehta: why gov should be interested in protecting its property- gov custodian for crores of people- Andhra Pradesh filed against waqf board- very glaring facts gov land virtually encroached [reads the judgment]

R.Hanumaiah v. State of Karnataka another judgment-

SG Mehta: Waqf by user not permitted henceforth, except

1. registered;

2. private property- governed by competent court adjudication and no person can say irrespective, it will remain waqf by user

3. Gov property- what will be the effect of stay? [reads his affidavit- not only defeat but also result in anamoligy -creation of legitimative regime by judicial order where the parliament consciously has taken out, would give premium to waqf by user which has defied the 100 years hold need for registration...anyone ficticiously claiming waqf by user in 2025 when he has never choose to apply for registration, would encourage the mischief quoted by the Committee that some waqf are deliberating avoiding to register]

SG Mehta: says 1923, 1954 and 1995 Act provided that anyone can get registered- no document was required [as in the deed requirement present in 2025]

SG Mehta: false narrative is created that they will have to provide documents or waqf is captured enmasse..

court to continue hearing soon.

G Mehta: your lordships have to see staying that

CJI: yesterday only we said there is a presumption of constitutionality

SG Mehta: S. 5 requiring publication of waqf was to enable the aggrieved party to challenge it, to be recorded in contempterous records and no person can claim registration which is not his

SG Mehta: s.3(1)(r) goes now with prospective effect provided it is registered and not disputed.

SG Mehta: strong opposition from Muslim community in the 1984 Act led to the non implementation. Now, 1995 Act, S. 87 was inserted but Nov, 2013 this provision was again deleted.