WAQF (Amendment) Bill: Non-Muslims will not be appointed to the Council, Board: Government tells the Supreme Court
On behalf of the Centre, Attorney General Tushar Mehta assured the bench of three members led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna.
The court asked the center to respond within seven days to file a petition challenging the bill. The petitioner was given five days to re-add it to the center’s response. The hearing will resume on May 5.
The Attorney Records Center assured, “During the hearing, the Deputy Attorney General noted that respondents wish to submit a brief reply within 7 days and that the appointment of the board and the board of directors shall not be carried out under the 2025 bill by the next date. He also assured that including WAQF, including WAQF, including WAQF, including WAQF, including WAQF, has passed the declared status or announced status.
SC made it clear that “the next date hearing is for instructions and temporary orders only, if any”. The court changed the title of ownership of the case to “in Re: WAQF Amendment”.
In short, Mehta proposed whether non-Muslims would be appointed to the Central WAQF Commission and the State WAQF Board until the next hearing. He also assured the bench that WAQFs declared by notification or registration, including the user’s WAQFs, will not be expressed until the next hearing date.
Mehta said at the beginning of the hearing that continuing a legislation during the admission phase of guilty plea is a “extraordinary measure” and should not be based on reading these provisions only temporarily. Mehta believes: “We have received hundreds of thousands and hundreds of thousands of representatives, and these statements have contributed to some of these amendments. The village is considered WAQFS. Treat private property as WAQFS. This affects many innocent people.”
Urgeing the SC to avoid complying with any provision of the Act, Mehta believes that the court will take a serious and harsh step directly or indirectly without proper assistance. He asked the bench to grant one week to produce relevant materials.
In response, CJI said verbally: “We have a special situation. We point out some weaknesses. We also say there are certain positive things (about the bill). However, we do not want the situation prevailing today to change so completely that it will affect the rights of the parties.”
“There is a thumb rule that the courts usually do not comply with the law. However, when the petition is pending, there is another thumb rule, and the general situation should not be changed so as not to be affected by the rights of the person.”
On Wednesday, the bench showed three issues – the validity of user property announced earlier by the Court Order may now become invalid; non-Muslims are the majority member of the Council; and in collectors’ inquiries about the disputed property, the statement would not be considered as WAQF property. Cji Khanna said verbally: “The user will have huge consequences when it comes to WAQF.” He added that certain provisions of the bill could have serious implications. Therefore, he said the bench will consider temporary orders.
