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

SG Mehta: according to them, the consequence was muttawalli will not continue, another will come and he will again be fined, this is an absurd way of reading statute

J Masih: in anycase, its not provided that the waqf ceases to be a waqf

It should be noted that the petitioners had argued that there was no consequence of non registration to the effect that waqf ceases to be a waqf.

SG Mehta: statement of accounts had to be recorded every year, it required statutory audit in 1923- my friends said there was no consequence- it was before the court.

S. 10- 1923 Act-

CJI: Sibal is technically right, what was provided was making a statement

SG Mehta: not technically right, it was more than just registration, it had to go to the court

SG Mehta: If after 1923, waqf is created, you have to go within 6 months to the court so that contemperaneous record is maintained

SG Mehta: otherside says where to get document? 1923 Act says provide anything you know about the origin or knowledge

CJI: Suppose, if they claim waqf is of 100 years, it was only necessary to give info of 5 years?

SG Mehta: yes, only description was needed. It was not mere formality, sanctity was attached.

SG Mehta: I will demonstratte from 1923, there are three tiers of responsibility 1. registration 2. unscrupulous people ...

CJI: 1923 Act provided a provision for registration? Earlier, Sibal said 1954 there was a registration requirement and not 1923

SG Mehta: campaign going on in country, 100 years of waqf, where will they bring the papers? Misleading campaign or narrative. says S. 3 of 1923 provided for registration- description was important and not deed

SG Mehta: on registration- argument was it was not mandatory. second, there was argument that there was no consequence. I have gone to root of the problem-British and Indian Gov tried to solve.

In 1923, first legislation governing regulation of waqf property-[says the property was misappropriated and people converted to Islam] this menace going for 102 years- I will tell why the 5 years of practice- [reads the Statement and Objects]-

Even Sharia Act, section 3 says you have to establish Muslim for it to apply

SG Mehta: on registration- argument was it was not mandatory. second, there was argument that there was no consequence. I have gone to root of the problem-British and Indian Gov tried to solve.

In 1923, first legislation governing regulation of waqf property-[says the property was misappropriated and people converted to Islam] this menace going for 102 years- I will tell why the 5 years of practice- [reads the Statement and Objects]-

Even Sharia Act, section 3 says you have to establish Muslim for it to apply

SG Mehta: only exception- registered waqf by user registered would be protected