Solicitor Common Tushar Mehta Tuesday advised the Supreme Court docket, which started listening to the problem in opposition to the amendments to the Waqf Act, that “waqf, by its very nature, is a secular idea” and that the regulation doesn’t contact upon any important non secular practices of Muslims.
“It might be famous that Waqf, by its very nature, is a secular idea. That is so since waqf merely means dedication of property,” Mehta said in a 145-page word submitted to the Court docket.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice Augustine G Masih that started listening to the batch of petitions searching for an interim keep on the amendments noticed that “a really sturdy and obtrusive case” is required to pause the operation of the regulation.
“There’s a presumption of constitutionality in favour of each statute. For interim reduction, it’s important to make out a really sturdy and obtrusive case. In any other case, presumption of constitutionality might be there,” CJI Gavai noticed.
Solicitor Common Mehta is anticipated to be heard Wednesday earlier than the Court docket passes orders on the restricted challenge of interim keep.
“The weather of charity or non secular dedication of property are frequent throughout all religions and particularly held by this Hon’ble Court docket to be a ‘purely secular train’. The basic goal of the Waqf Act is to confer statutory validity upon dedications whereas imposing sure duties and obligations. It’s at all times open to Parliament to change the statutory framework which conferred statutory validity to such dedications,” the word said.
Mehta quoted the 2003 Supreme Court docket ruling in John Vallamattom v Union Of India through which a Christian priest had challenged parts of the Indian Succession Act that positioned sure situations on Christians whereas bequeathing property to spiritual or charitable makes use of.
Story continues beneath this advert
Mehta’s word additionally gives a clarification that de-recognition of the idea of “waqf by consumer” might be “potential in nature.”
“The proviso (within the amended provision) ensures that any waqf, which was registered earlier than the involved authorities, can be protected.”
The federal government has argued that the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 and each subsequent laws on the problem mandated the registration of each waqf by consumer and that the 2025 regulation merely de-recognises any such waqf that has not been registered.
Nevertheless, the petitioners have argued that the 1923 Act or subsequent legal guidelines didn’t carry any penalties for failing to register which is why a number of waqf-by-user properties stay unregistered.
Story continues beneath this advert
“It’s thus clear that these waqfs which haven’t registered themselves (together with ‘waqfs by consumer’) since 1923, 1954, or a minimum of previous to 01.01.1996 (date on which Act of 1995 got here in drive) nor have they been discovered to be in existence through the survey by the Survey Commissioner and an unbiased train mandated by regulation from the State Waqf Board (as defined above) and haven’t any authorized existence and any belated declare at this stage isn’t maintainable. This legislative coverage within the proviso, subsequently, has a rationale and isn’t arbitrary,” Mehta’s word said.
© The Indian Specific Pvt Ltd