WAQF Law: CJI BR Gavai Says Courts Cannot Interfere Unless...

In a recent hearing regarding the challenges to the Waqf Amendment Act, Chief of India BR Gavai emphasized the inherent presumption of constitutionality in laws passed by Parliament. He underscored that judicial intervention is unwarranted unless there's a significant violation evident. This statement came during the proceedings of a bench comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice AG Masih, addressing multiple petitions against the recently legislated Waqf Amendment Act.

The discussion in court revolved around three primary issues previously highlighted: the concept of Waqf by user, the nomination of non-Muslims to the Waqf Council and state Waqf Boards, and the identification of government land under Waqf. The Centre, reassured by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, agreed to hold off actions on these matters until a resolution is reached. Mehta urged that the focus remain on these specific issues despite the petitioners' attempts to broaden the scope of the debate.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, resisted the suggestion to narrow the focus to only three issues. They argued for a comprehensive review of the Act, highlighting its potential to expropriate Waqf properties without due process. Sibal criticized the Act for permitting the acquisition of Waqf lands under questionable conditions and raised concerns about the stipulation that only practicing Muslims for at least five years can establish a Waqf. He labeled such provisions as unconstitutional, asserting the personal nature of Waqf properties and their independence from state ownership.

Further, Sibal contested the Act's provision allowing grievances against Waqf properties to be adjudicated by government officers, effectively making them judges in their own cause. He also drew parallels between the financial treatment of mosques and temples, noting the constitutional prohibition against state financing of religious institutions and the implications for mosques and burial grounds, which typically rely on private property dedications as Waqf.

During the proceedings, a contentious issue arose about the loss of Waqf status for monuments declared "protected" by the Archaeological Survey of India, including significant sites like Jama Masjid, Sambhal. Sibal highlighted the disturbing implications of such disputes leading to the removal of Waqf status. He also pointed out that certain sections of the Act were not subjected to Parliamentary debate, as they were not part of the draft examined by the Joint Parliamentary Committee.