Years
The Center strongly defended the Act, arguing that Waqf is naturally a “secular concept” and hence it should not be banned, cited “notion of constitutionalism” that supports the law.
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its interim order on three major issues. A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai of India and Justice AG Christ completed the hearing after a three -day marathon debate on all sides. The Center strongly defended the Act, arguing that Waqf is naturally a “secular concept” and hence it should not be banned, cited “notion of constitutionalism” that supports the law.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Chief Justice (CJI) of India BR Gavai -led bench that the provision to prevent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe Muslims from dedicating property as Waqf was a protective measure. He argued that in the absence of such security measures, anyone can play the role of Mutavalli (manager of Waqf Property) and can potentially misuse Waqf properties for personal benefit. The Law Officer further stated that many tribal organizations have filed petitions in support of the 2025 Act. Earlier, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, demanding an interim ban on the law, argued that the 2025 Act facilitates the acquisition of Waqf properties through non-judicial means.
Senior advocate Ahmadi opposed the government
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi says that Section 3E takes away the right to dedicate the property from a Muslim tribal as a Waqf. Ahmadi opposes the government’s argument that 3 E. Tribal protects the land from being isolated. On the other hand, it isolate to reduce the right to make tribal Muslims a vaqf. The government says that tribals can form Muslim trusts. If they can create a trust, how can they be prevented from being deprived of their property.
Other news