THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, April 16: During a hearing on multiple pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Supreme Court on Wednesday posed sharp questions to the Centre, particularly on whether Muslims would now be permitted to join Hindu religious trusts.
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, with Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan, raised concerns about the removal of the long-established concept of “waqf by user” — the recognition of properties as waqf through consistent religious use, even without written documentation.
“You can’t undo history. If something was declared a waqf 100 or 200 years ago, it can’t suddenly be reversed. Legislature cannot declare a judgment void, only its basis,” the bench observed.
The court also pointedly asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, “Are you saying Muslims can now be allowed into Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly.”
Also Read- Jharkhand News: Dumka medical college students protest for basic amenities
Petitioners argue against restrictions on Waqf creation
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioners, argued that the amended law unfairly limits waqf creation to Muslims and requires proof of Islamic practice over the last five years.
Sibal questioned the state’s right to determine someone’s religious identity. Ahmadi emphasized that waqf by user is a well-accepted religious practice that cannot be invalidated.
While Mehta defended the amendment by noting extensive deliberations in Parliament and among stakeholders, Singhvi urged the top court to retain the matter, citing nationwide implications, instead of referring it to a High Court.
Also Read- Jharkhand News: Ammonia gas leak from HURL Sindri plant triggers panic
CJI seeks clarifications before further legal proceedings
The CJI concluded by asking both sides to clarify whether the matter should be retained by the apex court and to submit a concise outline of their key arguments.
“There are two aspects we want to ask both the sides to address. Firstly, whether we should entertain or relegate it to the high court? Secondly, point out in brief what you are really urging and wanting to argue?” We are not saying there is any bar on SC in hearing, deciding pleas against the law,” the CJI stated.
Over 70 petitions—including those from AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMPLB, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, DMK, and Congress MPs—have challenged the amended law.
