 |
|
The Supreme Court's decision to defer the hearing on petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, until May 20th marks a significant development in a legal battle that has been simmering for some time. This postponement allows the court to further consider the prayer for an interim stay of the provisions, signaling the gravity of the issues at stake. The case has seen some procedural changes, initially presided over by a three-judge bench led by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, before shifting to a two-judge bench under CJI B R Gavai following Justice Khanna's retirement. This transition highlights the dynamic nature of the judicial process and the potential impact of personnel changes on the progression of legal matters. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's confirmation that the government has filed its counter-affidavit further underscores the seriousness with which the Centre is addressing the concerns raised regarding the law. The Supreme Court had earlier expressed concerns on the waqf by user concept, indicating a willingness to scrutinize the legislation's nuances. The court's questioning of the Centre regarding changes introduced to the Waqf law, specifically the retrospective status afforded only to registered waqfs and the inclusion of non-Muslims in state Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, points to a focus on issues of fairness, inclusivity, and historical precedent. The sheer volume of petitions filed – dozens in total – demonstrates the widespread interest and concern surrounding the 2025 amendments. The court's decision to enlist only five as lead matters, while treating the remainder as intervention applications, suggests an attempt to streamline the proceedings and focus on the core arguments. However, this approach has also drawn criticism, with concerns raised about the potential for a “polarised impression” given that all five lead petitions were filed by Muslim parties. This highlights the sensitive nature of the issue and the importance of ensuring that all perspectives are adequately represented before the court. The Solicitor General's rebuttal, along with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal's opposition, suggests a difference of opinion on whether the court's selection of lead petitions is truly representative of the diverse range of challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The fact that the Supreme Court is also considering a separate petition challenging the Waqf Act, 1995, adds another layer of complexity to the legal landscape. The court's decision to hear this petition separately underscores the distinction between challenges to the original act and those targeting the more recent amendments. CJI Gavai's explicit statement that the court will not permit any challenge to the 1995 Act in petitions challenging the 2025 amendments is a clear indication of the court's intention to maintain a strict focus on the specific issues raised by the amendments. This decision could have significant implications for those seeking to challenge the validity of the original Waqf Act. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain's attempts to raise concerns about the 1995 Act within the context of the 2025 amendment challenges were met with resistance from the CJI, who questioned the timing and rationale for challenging the older legislation now. The CJI's pointed question – “How can we permit you to raise the challenge to the provisions of the 1995 Act in the 2025 Act?” – reflects the court's unwillingness to broaden the scope of the current proceedings. The CJI’s stance is further reinforced by his categorical statement that the court will not consider any request for a stay of the provisions of the 1995 Act. This firm stance suggests that the court is determined to avoid conflating the two separate legal challenges and to ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the specific issues raised by the 2025 amendments. This emphasis on procedural clarity and focused legal arguments is a hallmark of the Supreme Court's approach to complex and sensitive cases. The court's handling of these petitions highlights the delicate balance between addressing legitimate concerns about the fairness and constitutionality of legislation and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
The core of the challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, appears to revolve around several key issues. The first is the retroactive validation of only registered Waqf properties. Petitioners likely argue this disadvantages unregistered Waqfs, potentially impacting their rights and status unfairly. This retroactive aspect raises questions about due process and equal protection under the law. The second major point of contention centers on the inclusion of non-Muslims in the state Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council. Opponents might argue that this dilutes the religious character of these bodies and potentially compromises their ability to effectively manage Waqf properties according to Islamic principles. This issue touches upon the separation of religious affairs and secular governance, and the potential for conflicts of interest. Concerns about the “waqf by user” concept also suggest anxieties regarding the scope of what can be considered a Waqf property. This raises questions about potential ambiguities in the law and the potential for disputes over property ownership and usage. The Supreme Court's decision to address these issues directly signals a willingness to examine the specific provisions of the amendment act and assess their potential impact on the rights of various stakeholders. The outcome of this legal challenge could have far-reaching consequences for the management and administration of Waqf properties in India, as well as for the broader legal framework governing religious institutions and minority rights. Ultimately, the court's decision will need to strike a balance between upholding the legislative intent behind the amendments and safeguarding the fundamental rights and religious freedoms of all citizens.
The legal arguments presented by both sides will likely be intricate and multifaceted. The petitioners will need to demonstrate that the 2025 amendments violate constitutional principles, such as equality before the law, religious freedom, and due process. They may also argue that the amendments are inconsistent with established legal precedents and principles of Islamic law. The government, on the other hand, will likely argue that the amendments are necessary to modernize and streamline the administration of Waqf properties, to prevent mismanagement and corruption, and to ensure that these properties are used for the benefit of the Muslim community. The government may also argue that the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards is a positive step towards greater transparency and accountability. The court will need to carefully weigh these competing arguments and consider the potential implications of its decision for all stakeholders. The Supreme Court's role as the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes is particularly crucial in cases that involve complex constitutional questions and sensitive religious issues. The court's decision will not only determine the fate of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, but will also set important precedents for future cases involving religious institutions and minority rights. As the hearing date approaches, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court as it grapples with these challenging legal and social issues. The future of Waqf administration in India hinges on the court’s deliberations and the ultimate judgment it renders. The case highlights the ongoing tension between religious traditions, legal reforms, and constitutional principles in a diverse and rapidly evolving society.
Source: Supreme Court defers pleas against Waqf (Amendment) Act till May 20