NEW DELHI: Producing historical proof that the law mandated registration of all kinds of waqf properties, including those in the 'waqf by user' category, since 1923, Centre on Wednesday told Supreme Court that the legal requirement was deliberately flouted to subserve vested interests, a menace sought to be eradicated by the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta punched holes in submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal , who is the lead counsel for the Muslim side challenging the validity of the 2025 law, by pointing out how the petitioners had attempted to portray falsehood and mislead a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih. Mehta said Sibal had made false statements or suppressed provisions relating to several issues.
SG: Muslim side made false claims to project misleading picture to SC
Solicitor General Mehta said senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is the lead counsel for the Muslim side, had made false statements or suppressed provisions relating to several issues - the content of bill placed in Parliament after incorporating JPC recommendations, ancient Islamic monuments being made out of bounds for religious activities of Muslims, non-Muslims in Waqf Council and Boards, inquiry into waqf land in dispute, and identification of govt land treated as waqf - to project a misleading picture before court.
Living up to Sibal's prophecy on Tuesday that if he raised 10 questions on validity of the 2025 Act, the SG would have 11 answers to it, Mehta said the fact that only a Muslim could create a waqf and it must be registered had been mandatory since 1923. However, before the 2014 LS elections, the UPA govt in Dec 2013 amended Waqf Act, 1995, to allow anyone to make a waqf, ostensibly to appease Muslims and for vote-bank politics.
Sibal had on Tuesday argued that the requirement for registration of waqf properties had been inserted in the new law in order to appropriate properties of Muslims.
"How can someone declare another person's property, even if it had been used for a long time, as a waqf? How can someone declare an encroached govt land as waqf? Should there be no inquiry and proof be asked about it?" Mehta asked, adding that none of the affected parties had approached the SC and that the challenge was through PILs.
He said the govt had appointed a three-member committee comprising distinguished persons to study the waqf property mismanagement issue. In its detailed report in 1976, the committee said concealment of waqf and wilful non-registration of waqf properties was a deeply prevailing malady in administration of waqfs. The committee had recommended that if a waqf was not registered, then the mutawalli could not file a suit.
Mehta said in 1984, Parliament amended the Waqf Act and provided that no suit would be maintainable in relation to an unregistered waqf. But because of political reasons, this amendment was never brought into force, Mehta said. "This provision was there in the Waqf Act, 1995, but was deleted by the 2013 amendment Act," he added, referring to the changes the UPA govt carried out before the 2014 Lok Sabha polls.
He rubbished Sibal's argument that once a govt officer declares a property not to be a waqf, without any judicial adjudication, the Muslims had no remedy. Mehta said every process of identification of govt land or private property was subject to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and amenable to challenge before a court of law.
For govt or a private party to get title over its land, wrongly identified as waqf property and in possession of a waqf, concerned person must approach a civil court for getting ownership title over it, which is a judicial process.
He said the minority affairs ministry had assured the JPC in writing and filed an affidavit before the SC declaring that a maximum of four out of total 22 members in the Central Waqf Council and three out of 11 in state Auqaf Boards could be non-Muslims. "This does not alter the minority character of the council and boards," he said, refuting the argument that the number of Muslims on waqf bodies would come down substantially under the new law.
He said the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904 and 1958 categorically stated that the religious character of ancient and protected monuments, which are more than 100 years old, would not change, irrespective of their status as waqf property. The arguments will continue on Thursday.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta punched holes in submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal , who is the lead counsel for the Muslim side challenging the validity of the 2025 law, by pointing out how the petitioners had attempted to portray falsehood and mislead a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih. Mehta said Sibal had made false statements or suppressed provisions relating to several issues.
SG: Muslim side made false claims to project misleading picture to SC
Solicitor General Mehta said senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is the lead counsel for the Muslim side, had made false statements or suppressed provisions relating to several issues - the content of bill placed in Parliament after incorporating JPC recommendations, ancient Islamic monuments being made out of bounds for religious activities of Muslims, non-Muslims in Waqf Council and Boards, inquiry into waqf land in dispute, and identification of govt land treated as waqf - to project a misleading picture before court.
Living up to Sibal's prophecy on Tuesday that if he raised 10 questions on validity of the 2025 Act, the SG would have 11 answers to it, Mehta said the fact that only a Muslim could create a waqf and it must be registered had been mandatory since 1923. However, before the 2014 LS elections, the UPA govt in Dec 2013 amended Waqf Act, 1995, to allow anyone to make a waqf, ostensibly to appease Muslims and for vote-bank politics.
Sibal had on Tuesday argued that the requirement for registration of waqf properties had been inserted in the new law in order to appropriate properties of Muslims.
"How can someone declare another person's property, even if it had been used for a long time, as a waqf? How can someone declare an encroached govt land as waqf? Should there be no inquiry and proof be asked about it?" Mehta asked, adding that none of the affected parties had approached the SC and that the challenge was through PILs.
He said the govt had appointed a three-member committee comprising distinguished persons to study the waqf property mismanagement issue. In its detailed report in 1976, the committee said concealment of waqf and wilful non-registration of waqf properties was a deeply prevailing malady in administration of waqfs. The committee had recommended that if a waqf was not registered, then the mutawalli could not file a suit.
Mehta said in 1984, Parliament amended the Waqf Act and provided that no suit would be maintainable in relation to an unregistered waqf. But because of political reasons, this amendment was never brought into force, Mehta said. "This provision was there in the Waqf Act, 1995, but was deleted by the 2013 amendment Act," he added, referring to the changes the UPA govt carried out before the 2014 Lok Sabha polls.
He rubbished Sibal's argument that once a govt officer declares a property not to be a waqf, without any judicial adjudication, the Muslims had no remedy. Mehta said every process of identification of govt land or private property was subject to the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and amenable to challenge before a court of law.
For govt or a private party to get title over its land, wrongly identified as waqf property and in possession of a waqf, concerned person must approach a civil court for getting ownership title over it, which is a judicial process.
He said the minority affairs ministry had assured the JPC in writing and filed an affidavit before the SC declaring that a maximum of four out of total 22 members in the Central Waqf Council and three out of 11 in state Auqaf Boards could be non-Muslims. "This does not alter the minority character of the council and boards," he said, refuting the argument that the number of Muslims on waqf bodies would come down substantially under the new law.
He said the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904 and 1958 categorically stated that the religious character of ancient and protected monuments, which are more than 100 years old, would not change, irrespective of their status as waqf property. The arguments will continue on Thursday.
You may also like
Report: Bangladesh foreign secretary to be replaced after 'defying' Yunus
Data Sutram Bags $9 Mn To Offer Fraud Detection Services To BFSI Sector
Wagon Wheel chocolate leaves Brits baffled as name has nothing to do with shape
Elevation Of General Syed Asim Munir To Field Marshal: A Gambit, Not Glory
UP Ballia District Fires Five Primary School Teachers For Fraudulent Recruitment In 2018 Mass Hiring
