New Delhi:
The government assured on Thursday that the Supreme Court “will not be WAQF appointments … (s) no status change (of property claims by WAQF Banards)” to the next hearing of a link of petitions that betrayed the changes of the laws of the legislation of Muslim charitable institutions.
The court was told that existing WAQFS, including those that are claimed via 'Waqf per user', would not change.
With the provision 'WAQF by User', WAQF boards can claim real estate without documentation if used by Muslims for religious or charity purposes. This was a red flag in yesterday's hearing.
“We do not say that all 'WAQF by the user' is wrong … But there is concern,” the court said.
The reference “no agreements” was to changes in the composition of WAQF boards.
In particular, with changes accepted by the parliament this month, WAQF boards must now include non-Muslims, a provision criticized by members of the community and opposition parties.
These and other changes in the WAQF laws have activated protests throughout the country.
Three people were killed in Bengal and this led to a fierce fight between the prevailing trinamool, who sworn the changed WAQF laws in the State not to be implemented, and the opposition BJP, who accused Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of 'Appeasement Politics' before the election of next year.
Read | BJP settles the profession of Mamata Banerjee when 3 dies in WAQF Law protests
During today's hearing, lawyer -general Tushar Mehta, who appeared before the government, looked for a week to respond to challenges in WAQF law changes. In the meantime, he said, the government would not make agreements based on sections 9 and 14 of the new law.
These sections limit the number of Muslim members in the Central WAQF Council and State WAQF boards to only eight and four, from 22 and 11, respectively.
And these attracted sharp observations from the court, in which supreme judge Sanjiv Khanna asked the lawyer -general as to whether the government in turn allows Muslims to leave part of the Hindu donations.
Read | “Will Muslims be in Hindu boards? Say it open”: Supreme Court asks
In the meantime, the court also said that it would only deal with five written petitions, and noted that “it is impossible to deal with 100 or 200 (which have been submitted so far)”. The others will be treated as 'thrown away', the supreme judge said, because he allowed the government a week to respond to the petitions.
The petitioners then have five days to answer the government, the court said.
In the hearing on Wednesday, the Supreme Court intended to give an interim stay to the revised WAQF laws, but withdrawn after the center and the governments had asked for more time.
Read | Supreme Court is thinking of interim enclosure of parts of the WAQF -Act, says Centrum …
The court considered the interim stay as a measure to stop the violent protests.
The court had said earlier that it would consider three points before he would assume an interim order to remain the controversial provisions. These are a) Validity of 'WAQF by users' properties that have previously been declared by the court can now be invalid, b) the fact that non-Muslims have the majority in the WAQF council and councils, and c) that disputed property, pending questions, are not treated as WAQF.
At the start of this case, the Supreme Court made it clear that it would not break into the domain of the legislative power and that the separation of powers by the Constitution had been made clear.
But if the ultimate referee on issues involving the Constitution, it has agreed to hear the petitioners who are trying the changed WAQF -laws fundamental rights, including the right to equality and the right to pursue religious practices.
Among those who have challenged the law, his leaders of opposition parties such as the Congress, AAP, DMK and CPI, as well as the JDU of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, a BJP fellow fellow.
The challenge of the JDU is important since Bihar – which has a large part of Muslims – votes in an election of the meeting later this year.
Religious organizations and NGOs, such as the Jamiat Ula-E-Hind and the Muslim Personal Law Board of All-India, have also submitted objections. Some applicants have searched for cancellation of the law, while others have asked for a freezing.
DailyExpertNews is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get the latest updates from DailyExpertNews on your chat.
