Read quickly
Summary AI is generated, newsroom rated.
The Center defended the WAQF Amendment Act in the Supreme Court, which states that WAQF is not essential for Islam and emphasizes the secular functions.
New Delhi:
WAQF is an Islamic concept, but it is not an essential part of Islam, the center today told the Supreme Court, while acting the WAQF amendment that fueled protests and led a legal challenge. “WAQF is an Islamic concept, there is no doubt about it, but it is not an essential part of Islam. WAQF is not a fundamental law,” Lawyer General Tushar Mehta told the center.
He said that the government is the preservator of the ownership of 140 crore citizens and it was the duty of the state to ensure that public ownership is not illegally diverted. “A false story is created that they must provide documents, or WAQF is recorded en masse.”
Platicitor -General Mehta said that WAQF is for charity and a WAQF board only discharges secular functions. The arguments of the petitioners against the inclusion of non-Muslim members in WAQF agencies, he said: “With 2 non-Muslims, what will it change? It doesn't affect a religious activity.”
Previously, Mr. Mehta said that a few petitioners cannot claim to represent the entire Muslim community. “We received 96 Lakh representations. The JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) had 36 sessions. There were repeated deliberations with the JPC. They took various inputs from different Muslim bodies. After that a voluminous report was submitted, where suggestions were accepted/rejected.”
On the subject 'Waqf by User', the center said that 'Waqf by User' means that the real estate is someone else's property and that you have obtained the right through continuous use. “If there is a building that can be government property, the government cannot investigate whether the real estate is from the government?”
The argument of the petitioners that the government cannot determine its own claim, Mr Mehta said that the income authorities would decide whether it is the government country, but they cannot decide the title.
Chief judge BR Gavai said: “The image that is painted is that as soon as the collector carries out an investigation, the real estate ceases to be a WAQF ownership and once the investigation is completed, the entire property is taken over by the government.” Mr. Mehta replied that the government should submit a title suit for ownership.
With regard to the requirement that only a practicing Muslim can do a WAQF donation for five years, Mr. Mehta said: “Even Shariaat has section 3 that says that you should settle yourself as a Muslim. It does not mean that you should offer Namaz 5 times a day or not to drink wine. In some cases, difficulties or not.”
Disting of distinction between Hindu donations and WAQF, Mr. Mehta said that control of Hindu donations is “penetrating”. “Hindu religious donations are only religious. But Muslimwaqfs include many secular institutions such as schools, madrasas, orphanages, Dharamshahalas, etc.,” he said.
With reference to an example, he said that the Bombay Public Trust Act controls the temples in Maharashtra and his chairman can be of any religion.
Mr. Mehta said that a WAQF has two offices – one of the Sajjadanashin, who is the spiritual head and performs religious functions, and the second is the Mutawalli office, which is the manager or manager. “First, it is not the subject of this WAQF case, because this law has nothing to do with religious and spiritual practice.”
The argument that the law does not conflict with Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion, referred the Platricitor -General to the Hindu Code Bill from 1956 that codified Hindu -personal laws. “When Hindu Code Bill came in 1956, the personal rights of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains were removed. Nobody said why only Muslims were about and why others were not?”
The lawyer -general has cited the Tamil Nadu Endowments Act with which the board can remove the Mathadhipati if he violates the functions of the office. “And here we make a microscopic minority in the WAKF sign it will violate items 25, 26?”
What applicants have said
Hearing of the petitioners' arguments yesterday, said Chief Justice or India Bravai that there is a suspicion of constitution in legislation that releases parliament and courts “cannot interfere unless a striking matter has been made”. The bank also includes Justice AG Masih.
Sibal appeared for an submitter and said that the law is aimed at conquering WAQF countries. “The law is designed in such a way that WAQF ownership is removed without following a process.” He also pointed out to the situation that only a person who practices Islam for at least five years can create a WAQF. “If I stand on my deathbed and I want to make a WAQF, I have to prove that I have been a practicing Muslim. This is unconstitutional,” he said.
Mr. Sibal said that according to the new law, each village of Panchayat or a private person can increase a complaint and the property ceases to be WAQF. “The government official will decide and will be a judge for his own case. No questions asked.”
“Don't forget that WAQF is about my property. It is only a person's owned and it cannot be from the state. Now that ownership is being taken away,” he said.
Mr. Sibal also made a comparison between mosques and temples. “According to our Constitution, the State cannot possibly finance religious institutions. The State cannot finance a mosque for its maintenance, a cemetery must be made by private property. So people often have their characteristics at the end of life as WAQF. When the supreme judge pointed out that subsidies were also granted at Dargahs, Mr. Sibal said he said it.
