Nobody Can Claim Right Over Government Land: Govt In Supreme Court Targets Waqf

In a recent session with the Supreme Court, the Central Government emphasized that the concept of waqf, traditionally seen as an Islamic charity, is not a core element of Islam but a form of charity similar to practices in other religions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted the secular nature of waqf boards' roles, contrasting them with the religious administration of temples. "Waqf is an Islamic concept. But it is not an essential part of Islam... Waqf is nothing but just charity in Islam. Judgments show that charity is part of every religion and can happen for Christianity also. Hindus have a system of daan. Sikhs also have it," Mehta elaborated, placing waqf within a broader context of charitable practices across different faiths.

The dialogue in the Supreme Court also touched upon the recent amendments to the Waqf law, which the Central Government asserts have addressed issues that remained unresolved since British rule and through subsequent Indian administrations. The government's stance was that these amendments were crucial in rectifying longstanding complications with the management and identification of waqf properties. "We were eradicating the menace that was there since 1923. Every stakeholder was heard. A few petitioners cannot claim to represent the entire Muslim community. We received 96 lakh representations. The JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) had 36 sittings," Mehta stated, underscoring the extensive consultation process that preceded the amendments.

Furthermore, the government has proposed a halt on two significant elements of the Waqf law, engaging in a detailed defense of its position before the Supreme Court. As the court reviewed petitions challenging the Waqf law, which broadens the government's regulatory oversight over waqf properties, Solicitor General Mehta argued against the 'waqf-by-user' principle. This principle, now removed in the new legislation, previously allowed for properties to be recognized as waqf if they had been used for religious or charitable purposes over time without the need for formal documentation. "Nobody has the right over government land... There is a Supreme Court judgment which says the government can save the property if it belongs to the government and has been declared as waqf," Mehta explained, reinforcing the government's authority to reclaim such properties.

The Supreme Court, while hearing these arguments, was reminded of the "presumption of constitutionality" that accompanies legislation passed by Parliament. This principle suggests that laws are presumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise, a point Chief Justice BR Gavai emphasized. "There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case," Gavai stated, signaling the high threshold for challenging legislative actions in court.

The Central Government's plea to the Supreme Court focused on narrowing the scope of the hearing to key issues such as the 'waqf-by-user' principle, the nomination of non-Muslims to waqf boards, and the identification of government lands under waqf. This approach seeks to address specific legal and administrative concerns while reaffirming the government's stance on the non-essential nature of waqf in Islam and its commitment to resolving longstanding disputes regarding waqf properties.