Wednesday, 16 April 2025

Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025: Supreme Court Hearing

 30-Minute Speech on Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025: Supreme Court Hearing

Introduction (3 minutes)

  • Greeting and Context: Good [morning/afternoon], esteemed audience. Today, I address the ongoing Supreme Court hearing on the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, a legislation sparking nationwide debate.
  • Purpose: This speech outlines the key issues raised in the Supreme Court, the arguments from both sides, and the implications for India's constitutional and social fabric.
  • Overview: The Waqf Act amendments aim to reform the 1995 Waqf Act, but petitioners challenge its constitutional validity, citing violations of religious freedom and federal structure.

Background of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 (5 minutes)

  • Legislative Journey:
    • Passed in Lok Sabha on April 3, 2025 (288 for, 232 against) and Rajya Sabha on April 4, 2025 (128 for, 95 against).
    • Aimed to increase central regulatory authority over waqf properties, addressing issues like mismanagement and disputed claims.
  • Key Provisions:
    • Allows non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council.
    • Empowers District Collectors to investigate and determine waqf property status.
    • Removes "waqf by user" concept, requiring registered deeds for waqf status.
    • Mandates that only Muslims practicing for five years can create waqf.
    • Protects ancient monuments under the 1904 and 1958 Acts from waqf claims.
  • Objective: The government claims the Act ensures transparency and inclusivity, but critics argue it infringes on Muslim religious rights.

Supreme Court Hearing: Key Issues Raised (8 minutes)

  • Constitutional Validity:
    • Petitioners, including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, AAP leader Amanatullah Khan, and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, argue the Act violates Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs).
    • Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal: The Act’s requirement to prove five years of practicing Islam to create waqf infringes on fundamental religious rights.
    • Sibal: A state officer (Collector) deciding waqf status is unconstitutional, as it makes the government a "judge in its own cause."
  • Waqf by User:
    • Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna flagged concerns about undoing "waqf by user," a long-recognized Islamic practice where properties are deemed waqf through prolonged use.
    • CJI: Many ancient masjids (14th-16th centuries) lack registered sale deeds, making it impractical to demand documentation.
    • Example: Jama Masjid, protected as an ancient monument, cannot lose waqf status under prior laws.
  • Waqf Board Composition:
    • The Act allows non-Muslims on Waqf Boards, prompting CJI Khanna to question parity: "Will Muslims be allowed on Hindu endowment boards?"
    • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that only two non-Muslim members (maximum) and ex-officio members are permitted, aiming for inclusivity (e.g., Shia representation).
    • CJI: "When we sit here, we lose our religion. We are absolutely secular."
  • Violence and Social Impact:
    • CJI expressed concern over violent protests, notably in Murshidabad, West Bengal, where arson and riots occurred.
    • CJI: "Violence is disturbing when the matter is pending before us. It should not happen."

Interim Relief and Court’s Stance (6 minutes)

  • Interim Orders Proposed:
    • Properties declared waqf by courts (whether by deed or user) will not be de-notified during proceedings.
    • The provision preventing properties from being treated as waqf during Collector inquiries is stayed.
    • Waqf Board and Council members must be Muslim, except ex-officio members.
  • Court’s Approach:
    • CJI Khanna emphasized judicial impartiality, rejecting arguments to stay the entire Act but open to examining specific provisions.
    • The Court is considering whether to hear all pleas or refer them to a single High Court for uniformity.
    • CJI: Ancient masjids and genuine waqf properties must be protected, citing Privy Council judgments recognizing waqf by user.
  • Hearing Schedule:
    • Hearing paused on April 16, 2025, resumed on April 17 at 2 p.m., indicating a thorough review.

Arguments from Both Sides (5 minutes)

  • Petitioners’ Case:
    • Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, and others argue the Act undermines federal structure and religious autonomy.
    • Singhvi: The Act’s nationwide ramifications warrant Supreme Court intervention, not High Court referrals.
    • Sibal: Charity is an essential Islamic practice; the Act’s restrictions (e.g., Collector’s powers) encroach on this right.
    • Example: Even the Delhi High Court was reportedly claimed as waqf land, highlighting misuse concerns.
  • Government’s Defense:
    • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: The Act underwent extensive consultation (38 JPC sittings, 92 memoranda, state visits).
    • Mehta: Judicial review remains intact via Waqf Tribunals, and the Act enables private Muslim charities outside Waqf Boards.
    • Six BJP-ruled states (Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Assam) support the Act, citing past mismanagement and unauthorized waqf declarations.
    • Assam CM Himanta Sarma: "Waqf law is a reality. Opponents should approach the Supreme Court, but violence won’t be tolerated."

Implications and Broader Context (3 minutes)

  • Constitutional Concerns:
    • The Act tests the balance between state regulation and religious freedom under Article 26.
    • Critics, like IUML’s PK Kunhalikutty, call it an attack on the Constitution’s secular and federal principles.
  • Social Tensions:
    • Violence in Murshidabad, condemned by West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee as "pre-planned," underscores the Act’s divisive impact.
    • Banerjee’s call for a probe into BSF firing and ex gratia payments highlights the human cost of unrest.
  • National Ramifications:
    • With 8 lakh waqf properties, many by user, the Act’s implementation could reshape property rights and religious governance.
    • The Supreme Court’s ruling will set a precedent for managing religious endowments across faiths.

Conclusion (2 minutes)

  • Summary: The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 is at a critical juncture in the Supreme Court, with debates centering on religious freedom, practicality, and social harmony.
  • Call to Action: As the Court continues its hearing, stakeholders must prioritize dialogue over violence to uphold India’s pluralistic ethos.
  • Hope for Justice: Quoting Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, "We are hopeful that justice will be served." Let us trust the judiciary to balance reform with constitutional values.
  • Closing: Thank you for your attention. Let us await the Supreme Court’s wisdom in navigating this complex issue.

 

 

 

1. Introduction (2 mins)

·         Context: The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

·         Significance: The case raises critical questions about religious autonomy, state intervention, and the balance between legislative reform and historical rights.

·         Current Status: Hearing began on April 16, 2025; interim relief granted, but no final ruling yet. Proceedings resume today.

2. Background of the Waqf Act 2025 (3 mins)

·         Purpose: The Act aims to amend the 1995 Waqf Act, centralizing oversight of Waqf properties and introducing new regulatory mechanisms.

·         Key Amendments:

o    Role of District Collectors: Empowered to investigate and determine Waqf status of properties.

o    Composition of Waqf Boards: Inclusion of non-Muslim members, except ex-officio roles.

o    Waqf-by-User: Requires formal registration, challenging centuries-old practices.

o    Exclusion of Tribal/Scheduled Areas: Prohibits declaring such lands as Waqf.

3. Key Legal Challenges (5 mins)

Petitioners argue the Act violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 25 and 26 (right to religious freedom):

·         1. Composition of Waqf Boards:

o    Mandating non-Muslim members infringes on Muslim self-governance.

o    CJI’s Question: “Will Hindus/Sikhs allow Muslims in their endowment boards?” Highlights double standards.

·         2. District Collectors’ Authority:

o    Conflict of interest: State officers adjudicating Waqf status undermines fairness.

o    Kapil Sibal: “Collectors act as judges in their own cause.”

·         3. Waqf-by-User:

o    Historic mosques (14th–17th centuries) lack registered deeds; overturning their status risks chaos.

·         4. Religious Eligibility:

o    Requirement to prove 5 years of Islamic practice to create a Waqf termed “unconstitutional.”

4. Supreme Court’s Observations (5 mins)

·         Practical Concerns:

o    CJI Khanna: “How will 15th-century mosques produce sale deeds?” Undoing Waqf-by-user risks erasing heritage.

o    Recognized by Privy Council and courts historically.

·         Violence Condemnation:

o    CJI expressed distress over riots in Murshidabad (WB), urging restraint during judicial process.

·         Interim Relief:

o    Properties declared Waqf by courts cannot be de-notified.

o    Stay on provisions freezing Waqf status during Collector inquiries.

o    All Waqf Board members (non-ex-officio) must be Muslim.

5. Government’s Defense (4 mins)

·         Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s Arguments:

o    Inclusivity: Non-Muslim members prevent “monopolization” and ensure transparency.

o    Legislative Process: JPC consulted stakeholders; Parliament debated extensively.

o    Existing Protections: Ancient monuments (e.g., Jama Masjid) remain safeguarded under ASI laws.

o    Judicial Review: Waqf Tribunals (led by judges) ensure accountability.

6. Comparative Religious Endowment Practices (3 mins)

·         Parity Debate:

o    CJI’s Query: “If Waqf Boards include non-Muslims, should Hindu trusts include Muslims?”

o    Hindu endowments are managed exclusively by Hindus; petitioners seek similar autonomy.

·         Justice Viswanathan: Mixing property administration with religious identity complicates secular governance.

7. Violence and Societal Impact (3 mins)

·         West Bengal Unrest: Protests turned violent, deaths reported; CM Mamata Banerjee blamed BJP for inciting tensions.

·         Political Reactions:

o    Assam CM Himanta Sarma: Warned against violence, upheld Act’s legality.

o    Opposition Leaders: DMK, Congress, and TMC decry federal overreach and communal risks.

8. Upcoming Proceedings and Implications (3 mins)

·         Next Steps: Court to decide whether to hear case directly or refer to High Courts.

·         Potential Outcomes:

o    If Upheld: Centralized control over Waqf properties, redefining Muslim charitable practices.

o    If Struck Down: Reaffirmation of religious autonomy but may delay reforms to curb misuse.

·         Broader Impact: Case tests India’s secular fabric, balancing state regulation with minority rights.

9. Conclusion (2 mins)

·         Stakes: The verdict will shape the future of religious endowments, communal harmony, and legislative boundaries.

·         Call for Calm: CJI’s plea to avoid violence underscores the need for dialogue and judicial trust.

·         Final Thought: As the Supreme Court navigates this complex terrain, its ruling will resonate beyond legal corridors, impacting India’s socio-religious landscape.

End with a Q&A or reflective pause to engage the audience.

 

 

​Supreme Court Reviews Petitions Challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025​

The Supreme Court of India is currently deliberating on multiple petitions contesting the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. This legislation, which modifies the Waqf Act of 1995, has sparked significant debate and unrest across the country.​Wikipedia

Overview of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

Enacted on April 8, 2025, the Waqf (Amendment) Act introduces substantial changes to the governance of waqf properties—charitable endowments under Islamic law. Key provisions include:​Reuters+3Wikipedia+3AP News+3

  • Renaming the Act: The original Waqf Act, 1995, is now titled the United Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UWMEED) Act, 1995.​Wikipedia
  • Governance Reforms: The Act mandates the inclusion of at least two Muslim women on the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, and ensures representation from various Muslim sects.​Wikipedia+1Reuters+1
  • Inclusion of Non-Muslims: Non-Muslim members are now permitted on Waqf Boards, a move aimed at promoting inclusivity.​Wikipedia
  • Centralized Oversight: The Central Government gains authority to establish rules for waqf registration, auditing, and accounting, enhancing transparency and accountability.​Wikipedia
  • Appeal Mechanism: Decisions made by Waqf tribunals can now be appealed in the High Court within 90 days.​Wikipedia
  • Property Registration Changes: The Act removes the provision for "waqf by user," which recognized properties as waqf based on long-term use, and stipulates that only individuals practicing Islam for at least five years can declare a waqf.​Reuters+3Wikipedia+3AP News+3
  • Survey Authority Shift: The responsibility for surveying waqf properties transitions from the Survey Commissioner to the District Collector or a designated officer.​Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4Reuters+4
  • Limitation Act Applicability: By omitting Section 107, the Act now subjects waqf properties to the Limitation Act, 1963, potentially affecting the recovery of encroached properties.​Wikipedia

Legal Challenges and Opposition

Prominent political figures and organizations have filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the Act's constitutionality. Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, and the Communist Party of India argue that the Act infringes upon minority rights and religious freedoms.​Wikipedia

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), led by General Secretary Maulana Fazlur Rahim Mujaddidi, has been at the forefront of the opposition. Mujaddidi criticizes the Act as "discriminatory" and an overreach into Muslim religious affairs, asserting that it undermines the autonomy of waqf institutions.

 

 

Public Response and Protests

The enactment of the Act has led to widespread protests, particularly in regions with significant Muslim populations. In Murshidabad, West Bengal, demonstrations escalated into violence, resulting in three fatalities and over 200 arrests. The Calcutta High Court intervened by ordering the deployment of central forces to restore order.​Wikipedia+1Wikipedia+1

In Tripura's Unakoti district, protests turned violent, injuring 18 police personnel. The unrest underscores the deep-seated concerns within the Muslim community regarding the Act's implications.​Wikipedia

Government's Position

The government defends the Act as a measure to enhance transparency and efficiency in waqf property management. Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju emphasizes that the reforms aim to eliminate corruption and ensure equitable representation within waqf institutions.​Reuters+2Wikipedia+2AP News+2Wikipedia+2AP News+2Reuters+2

Supporters argue that the inclusion of diverse members and centralized oversight will modernize waqf administration, aligning it with contemporary governance standards.​Reuters+2AP News+2Wikipedia+2

Conclusion

As the Supreme Court examines the legal challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the nation watches closely. The outcome will have significant implications for the management of waqf properties and the broader discourse on minority rights and religious freedoms in India.​Reuters+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4

Controversy Surrounds India's Waqf Amendment Act

 

When and by whom the land registration system introduced in India

ChatGPT said:

The land registration system in India was introduced by the British during the colonial period, as part of their efforts to establish a formal system of land revenue collection and property rights.

🏛️ Origins of the Land Registration System in India

1. Permanent Settlement (1793)

  • Introduced by: Lord Cornwallis
  • Region: Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa
  • System: Zamindari System
  • Under this system, zamindars (landlords) were recognized as the owners of the land, and they were responsible for collecting taxes from peasants and paying a fixed revenue to the British government.
  • This marked the first major attempt to record land ownership and revenue obligations formally.

2. Ryotwari System (early 19th century)

  • Introduced by: Thomas Munro
  • Region: Madras Presidency (later extended to Bombay and parts of other areas)
  • System: Individual cultivators (ryots) were recognized as landholders, and they paid revenue directly to the British administration.
  • This required a more detailed recording of landholdings at the individual level.

3. Mahalwari System (early 19th century)

  • Introduced by: Holt Mackenzie and later modified by Lord William Bentinck
  • Region: North-Western Provinces, parts of Central India, and Punjab
  • System: Land revenue was settled with village communities (mahals), and collective responsibility was established.

📜 Evolution of Registration Laws

Indian Registration Act, 1864 & 1871

  • These were the first attempts to regulate property documentation, but they were limited in scope.

Indian Registration Act, 1908

  • Most significant legal milestone
  • Still in force (with amendments)
  • Mandated the compulsory registration of certain types of property transactions.
  • It aimed to:
    • Provide a public record of ownership
    • Prevent fraud
    • Ensure transparency in land dealings

Summary:

  • Land registration in India has its roots in British colonial administration, evolving through different revenue systems.
  • The Indian Registration Act of 1908 laid the legal foundation for the modern land registration system still in use today.

Would you like a simple timeline chart summarizing these developments?

 

 

Protests against Waqf Act: Fear and polarisation

It is imperative that the budding movement protesting the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 in West Bengal and elsewhere, shun violence and adhere to peaceful methods.

Many provisions of the Bill seem to contravene the fundamental rights of equality before the law, freedom of conscience and religion and the federal principle. (Express photo/ Partha Paul)

The passage of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, has predictably triggered protests across several districts of West Bengal — a state where Muslims account for over 27 per cent of the total population. In Murshidabad, a Muslim-majority district, angry protests have spilled over into violence leading to the tragic loss of lives and the deployment of central security forces following the direction of the Calcutta High Court. The sequence of events is reminiscent of violent protests against NRC and CAA in Murshidabad following the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019.

Political violence is not uncommon in West Bengal, but the recurrence of large-scale communal violence at frequent intervals is a more recent phenomenon. This is a direct outcome of the polarisation strategies deployed both by the BJP and the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal since 2017-18, which has led to the radicalisation of significant sections within both the majority and minority communities. While this has yielded electoral dividends for both parties, it has inflicted immense harm on West Bengal’s social fabric. Communalism and fundamentalism, which till a decade ago remained at the fringe of the political and social mainstream, have now assumed centerstage.

Story continues below this ad

The immediate concerns of restoring peace, providing relief to victims and reasserting the rule of law in the areas disturbed by communal violence in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district, should not distract us from addressing the root cause of such conflicts and violence. Since 2014, many of the legislative and executive initiatives of the union government have drawn criticisms regarding contraventions of the secular and federal principles enshrined in India’s Constitution The abrogation of Article 370, construction of the Ram Mandir, the NRC in Assam, the enactment of the CAA 2019 and efforts to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), initiated one after another, have adversely impacted India’s more than 20 crore Muslim population. The Waqf Amendment Act has added salt to those injuries. However, in West Bengal, the misunderstanding about the Waqf Act has furthered the tensions. To dispel the misconceptions, one first needs to focus on the fine print of the legislation.

Many provisions of the Bill seem to contravene the fundamental rights of equality before the law, freedom of conscience and religion and the federal principle. While renaming the law as Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, the amendment legislation actually redefines what is “waqf” and brings about a drastic overhaul of the entire management system of waqf properties — which are religious and charitable endowments of a permanent nature under Muslim personal law, including mosques, madrasas, orphanages, graveyards, dargahs, Idgahs etc.

Before the amendments, the Waqf Act of 1995 entrusted the management of waqf assets to state-level waqf boards, composed of elected representatives as well as representatives from the government and recognised Muslim organisations in each state. While waqf boards had powers to conduct surveys and inquiries through survey commissioners and settle waqf claims, dispute resolution was undertaken by state-level waqf tribunals, with their decisions justiciable only in the higher courts. The central waqf council played an advisory role and provided policy guidance.

 

 

Highlights: Violence occurring during protests against Waqf Act is ’very disturbing’, says SC

Supreme Court did not pass any interim order, but stated that it will continue hearing tomorrow. The apex court also said all Members of the waqf boards must be Muslims. Follow updates with Mint 

Mausam Jha, Sayantani

Updated17 Apr 2025, 06:59 AM IST

The Supreme Court bench, which did not issue a formal notice as of now, said it would resume hearing on the petitions at around 2 pm on April 17.

Waqf Amendment Act Supreme Court Hearing Highlights: The Supreme Court has proposed that a law be passed so that properties declared as Waqf including 'waqf by user' will not de-notified. The apex court also asked Centre whether Muslims would be allowed to be part of Hindu religious trusts.

Supreme Court also stated, "All Members of the waqf boards and central waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members."

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan will continue hearing the batch of pleas at 2 pm on April 17.

What is the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025?

The objective of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, is to amend the Waqf Act, 1995.  The Amendment Bill seeks to improve the administration and management of waqf properties in India, according to a release by the Ministry of Minority Affairs.


Supreme Court Waqf properties: వక్ఫ్‌ ఆస్తులేవీ డీనోటిఫై చేయొద్దు!

ABN , Publish Date - Apr 17 , 2025 | 04:17 AM

సుప్రీంకోర్టు, 'వక్ఫ్ బై యూజర్‌'గా నమోదైన ఆస్తులపై డీనోటిఫై చేయవద్దని కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వానికి సూచించింది. వక్ఫ్ సవరణ చట్టంపై చర్చలు కొనసాగించనున్నట్లు కోర్టు పేర్కొంది.


‘వక్ఫ్‌ బై యూజర్‌’ అయినా, వక్ఫ్‌ బోర్డుల ఆస్తులైనా ప్రస్తుతానికి చర్యలొద్దు

కేంద్రానికి సుప్రీం సూచన.. చట్టంలోని పలు అంశాలపై స్టే ఇచ్చేందుకు సిద్ధం?

‘వక్ఫ్‌ బై యూజర్‌’లను అనుమతించకుంటే ఎలా?

వందల ఏళ్ల కిందటి ఆస్తులకు పత్రాలు ఎలా వస్తాయి?

హిందూ మత ట్రస్టుబోర్డుల్లో ముస్లింలకు చోటిస్తారా అని సుప్రీంకోర్టు నిలదీత

విచారణ జరపకుండా ఉత్తర్వులు ఇవ్వవద్దంటూ కేంద్రం కేవియట్‌ దాఖలు

న్యూఢిల్లీ, ఏప్రిల్ 16: దేశవ్యాప్తంగా ‘వక్ఫ్‌ బై యూజర్‌’గా నమోదై ఉన్నవి సహా వక్ఫ్‌ ఆస్తులను వేటినీ డీనోటిఫై చేయవద్దని కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వానికి సుప్రీంకోర్టు సూచించింది. కేంద్రం తెచ్చిన వక్ఫ్‌ సవరణ చట్టంలోని కొన్ని సెక్షన్లను సవాల్‌ చేస్తూ దాఖలైన పిటిషన్లపై బుధవారం విచారణ సందర్భంగా ఈ ప్రతిపాదన చేసింది. ఈ మేరకు చట్టంలోని పలు అంశాలపై స్టే ఇచ్చేందుకూ సిద్ధమైంది. కానీ విచారణ చేపట్టకుండా ఉత్తర్వులేవీ జారీ చేయవద్దంటూ కేంద్రం కేవియట్‌ దాఖలు చేయడంతో విచారణను గురువారం (ఏప్రిల్‌ 17) మధ్యాహ్నం 2 గంటలకు వాయిదా వేసింది. ఇదే సమయంలో వక్ఫ్‌ సవరణ చట్టంలోని పలు అంశాలపై కేంద్రానికి కొన్ని ప్రశ్నలను సంధించింది. కేంద్రం చేసిన వక్ఫ్‌ సవరణ చట్టానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా సుప్రీంకోర్టులో పెద్ద సంఖ్యలో పిటిషన్లు దాఖలైన విషయం తెలిసిందే. చీఫ్‌ జస్టిస్‌ సంజీవ్‌ ఖన్నా, జస్టిస్‌ సంజయ్‌ కుమార్‌, జస్టిస్‌ కేవీ విశ్వనాథన్‌ల త్రిసభ్య ధర్మాసనం బుధవారం ఈ పిటిషన్లపై విచారణ ప్రారంభించింది. ఈ సందర్భంగా పిటిషనర్ల తరఫున ప్రముఖ న్యాయవాది కపిల్‌ సిబల్‌, అభిషేక్‌ సింఘ్వీ, రాజీవ్‌ ధవన్‌, ప్రభుత్వం తరఫున సొలిసిటర్‌ జనరల్‌ తుషార్‌ మెహతా తదితరులు సుదీర్ఘంగా వాదనలు వినిపించారు. వక్ఫ్‌ ఆస్తులన్నీ రిజిస్టర్‌ చేసుకోవాలన్న నిబంధన సరికాదని, వందల ఏళ్లుగా చాలా ఆస్తులు ‘వక్ఫ్‌ బై యూజర్‌ (ఎలాంటి పత్రాలు లేకుండా చాలా కాలం నుంచి వక్ఫ్‌ ఆస్తులుగా కొనసాగుతున్నవి)’గా కొనసాగుతున్నాయని పిటిషనర్ల తరఫు న్యాయవాదులు ధర్మాసనానికి నివేదించారు. అయితే వక్ఫ్‌ ఆస్తుల దుర్వినియోగాన్ని అరికట్టడమే దీని ఉద్దేశమని సొలిసిటర్‌ జనరల్‌ తుషార్‌ మెహతా వివరించారు. దీనిపై ధర్మాసనం స్పందిస్తూ.. ‘‘వందల ఏళ్లుగా వ్యక్తిగత ట్రస్టులుగా కొనసాగుతున్న ‘వక్ఫ్‌ బై యూజర్‌’లను ఇప్పుడు ఎలా రిజిస్టర్‌ చేస్తారు? వాటికి పత్రాలు ఎక్కడి నుంచి వస్తాయి? రిజిస్టర్‌ చేసుకోకుంటే వక్ఫ్‌ గుర్తింపు (డీనోటిఫై) తొలగిస్తే ఎలా? ఇంతకుముందు చాలా సందర్భాల్లో కోర్టులు ‘వక్ఫ్‌ బై యూజర్‌’ను గుర్తించాయి. ఇప్పుడు మీరు గుర్తింపును వెనక్కి తీసుకుంటే చాలా సమస్యలు చెలరేగుతాయి..’’ అని స్పష్టం చేసింది. వక్ఫ్‌ బై యూజర్‌, వక్ఫ్‌ బోర్డులు సహా వక్ఫ్‌గా కోర్టులు ప్రకటించిన ఆస్తులు వేటినీ డీనోటిఫై చేయవద్దని సూచించింది.

హిందూ బోర్డుల్లో ముస్లింలను నియమిస్తారా?

వక్ఫ్‌ బోర్డుల్లో ముస్లిమేతర సభ్యుల నియామకాల సెక్షన్‌ను ప్రస్తావిస్తూ.. ‘హిందూ మత ట్రస్టు బోర్డుల్లో ముస్లింను నియమిస్తారా?’ అని ధర్మాసనం ప్రశ్నించింది. వక్ఫ్‌ బోర్డులు, కేంద్ర వక్ఫ్‌ కౌన్సిల్‌లో సభ్యులుగా ముస్లింలే ఉండాలని పేర్కొంది. వక్ఫ్‌ బోర్డుల్లో ఎక్స్‌అఫీషియో సభ్యులు కూడా ముస్లింలే ఉండాలని సూచించింది. వక్ఫ్‌ చట్టం ప్రకారం కలెక్టర్లు తమ బాధ్యతలను నిర్వర్తించవచ్చని.. కానీ దీనికి సంబంధించిన వివాదాస్పద సెక్షన్‌ను మాత్రం ప్రస్తుతానికి అమలు చేయవద్దని సూచించింది. చివరగా పార్లమెంటు చేసిన చట్టాల్లో సాధారణంగా న్యాయవ్యవస్థ జోక్యం చేసుకోదని.. కానీ వక్ఫ్‌ చట్టంలోని పలు అంశాలపై అభ్యంతరాలు, వాటితో సమస్యలు ప్రస్ఫుటంగా కనిపిస్తున్నాయని ధర్మాసనం పేర్కొంది. గురువారం మధ్యాహ్నం విచారణ చేపడతామని.. ఆలోగా కౌంటర్‌ దాఖలు చేయాలని కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వాన్ని ఆదేశించింది. మరోవైపు వక్ఫ్‌ చట్టానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా చేపట్టిన నిరసనల్లో హింస చెలరేగడంపై ఆందోళన వ్యక్తం చేసింది.

అటు వ్యతిరేకం... ఇటు మద్దతుగా..

వక్ఫ్‌ సవరణ చట్టానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా ఎంఐఎం పార్టీ, జమియత్‌ ఉలేమా ఈ హింద్‌, ఆలిండియా ముస్లిం పర్సనల్‌ లా బోర్డు వంటి సంస్థలతోపాటు ఆప్‌, డీఎంకే, సీపీఐ, జేడీయూ తదితర పార్టీలు వేసినవి కలిపి మొత్తం 72 పిటిషన్లు దాఖలయ్యాయి. మరోవైపు కేంద్రానికి మద్దతుగా బీజేపీ పాలిత రాష్ట్రాలు హరియాణా, మహారాష్ట్ర, మధ్యప్రదేశ్‌, రాజస్థాన్‌, ఛత్తీ్‌సగఢ్‌, అసోం రాష్ట్రాలు పిటిషన్లు వేయడం గమనార్హం.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)