'Waqf Not An Essential Practice Of Islam' : Centre Tells Supreme Court, Opposes Stay Of Waqf Amendment Act 2025

The Supreme Court today (May 21) heard for over three hours the arguments made by the Union Government opposing any interim stay of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard the arguments.Union's argumentsSolicitor General of India Tushar Mehta started by saying that the Amendment Act was passed after detailed deliberations by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, which took the views of various stakeholders across the country.The petitioners had raised concerns about the proviso to Section 3C of the Act, which says that a "property shall not be treated as waqf property" till a designated officer completes an enquiry on whether it was encroaching upon Government land. Regarding this, Mehta said that this proviso only means that an entry will be made in the revenue records, and said that the question of title will be only determined by the Court. So, there is no basis for the argument that the Government can unilaterally take over the waqf land, he said."The only consequence is revenue records will be corrected...The argument repeated by them is that this provision allows the wholesale takeover of the waqf. It is misleading. Designated Officer is not making a final determination of property- only the revenue records will be updated. It is only that through revenue records, it will come to notice that the property belongs to the Government... It will be open for affected parties to approach the waqf tribunal, final determination of title would be decided by tribunal or in appeal by the High Courts," SG said."The picture that is being painted is once the Collector initiates enquiry, it ceases to be waqf and once inquiry is completed, the property will be taken over," CJI Gavai said. SG said that this was a "false and misleading narrative.""The revenue authorities decide whether it is government land or not. But it is only for the purpose of revenue records. They cannot decide the title. It is not final. The only consequence of the exercise undertaken by the officer under 3C will be limited to correcting revenue records. I have said this on affidavit," SG said."So it is only a paper entry?" CJI asked."It will be a paper entry. But if the government wants ownership, it will have to file a suit for title," SG replied.SG said that only the character of Waqf in the revenue records is suspended due to Section 3C. When CJI Gavai asked if the property could be alienated in such a scenario, SG said it cannot be, as the status quo will have to be maintained."In your view, according to proviso, the possession will not be taken unless considered by competent court?" CJI Gavai asked."Possession cannot be taken over by Section 3 (C). Theirs is a deliberately misunderstood argument. They said it's manifestly wholesale capturing- generally, mylords don't entertain a petition till the statute operates. Once the statute operates, its effect will come clear. There cannot be an academic challenge," SG said.SG refuted the petitioners' argument that Section 3C enabled the Government to act as a judge in its own cause. In this regard, the SG referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Crawford Bayley vs Union of India upholding the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971, which enabled the Government to appoint the Estate Officers to order eviction.Mehta, at one point, even said that the Court can delete the proviso to Section 3C.Regarding the question of registration, SG Mehta said that the Mussalman Wakf Act 1923 had a provision (Section 3) which mandated the registration of Waqfs. He said that the provision did not mandate the production of any deed and only knowledge about the origin needed to be given.Responding to the petitioners' argument that the only consequence of non-registration was penalties on the muttawalli, SG said, "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 a statute."SG said that there is a "narrative being built" that where do we get documents for age-old Waqfs. Mehta said that the 1923 Act itself had mandated the furnishing of the description of waqfs. Mehta said similar provisions were there in the 1954 Act as well."Now it is not open for anyone to say Waqf need not be registered," SG said after taking the bench through the previous enactments. He said that the new Amendment also allows a window of six months for registration. "If missed, then it can be done now also," he said.SG also said that there was a lot of "mischief" going on in the name of Waqf-by-user, as there are cases across the country of government properties being claimed. He said that the abolition of Waqf-by-user is prospective, and the existing Waqfs won't be affected if they are registered."Now a false narrative is being made that Waqf is being snatched. This is nothing but the country being misled. Waqf by user is not allowed prospectively...

'Waqf Not An Essential Practice Of Islam' : Centre Tells Supreme Court, Opposes Stay Of Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags