Violence over anti-Waqf law protests Very disturbing: SC

 

 

 

THE Supreme Court on Wednesday said, the violence occurring during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is “very disturbing”. A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan made the observation while hearing the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the newly-amended law on waqf. “One thing that is very disturbing is the violence that is taking place. If the matter is pending here then it should not happen,” the CJI said. Echoing a similar sentiment, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, “They (protesters) think they can pressurise the system by this.”

 

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for a Muslim organisation, opposed the submissions of the law officer and said, “Who is pressuring who we don’t know.” The CJI then said, there were “positive points in the bill” that should be highlighted. Fresh incidents of Waqf law-related violence rocked Bhangar area in West Bengal’s South 24 Parganas district on April 14, even as police claimed the law and order situation in the previous riot epicentre of Murshidabad remained largely under control. At least three people were killed and hundreds were rendered homeless in communal violence in parts of Murshidabad district, mainly Suti, Samserganj, Dhulian and Jangipur, on April 11 and 12 during protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act. The Supreme Court also proposed to order that the properties declared as waqf including “waqf by user” won’t be de-notified but the Centre opposed the suggestion and sought a hearing before such a directive.

 

The top court also asked the Centre if Muslims would be allowed to be part of Hindu religious trusts. “The properties declared by courts as waqfs should not be de-notified as waqfs, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed, while the court is hearing the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025,” the bench said. The top court went on, “All Members of the Waqf boards and central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.” A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan in the hearing earlier considered referring the pleas to one High Court but later heard at length a battery of senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The 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. The CJI further proposed to pass an order to say that ex-officio members could be appointed regardless of their faith but others had to be Muslims.

 

he apex court questioned Mehta on how “waqf by user” can be disallowed as many would not have requisite documents to get such waqfs registered. “Waqf by user” refers to a practice where a property is recognised as a religious or charitable endowment (waqf) based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there isn’t a formal, written declaration of waqf by the owner. “How will you register such waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment, order or decree as void. You can only take the basis,” the bench said. Mehta, however, submitted there was a large section of Muslims who did not want to be governed by Waqf act. The bench then asked Mehta, “Are you saying that from now on you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly.” The apex court said when a public trust was declared to be a waqf 100 or 200 years ago, it couldn’t suddenly be taken over by the waqf board and declared otherwise.

 

“You cannot rewrite the past,” the bench said. Mehta submitted that a joint parliamentary committee had 38 sittings and examined 98.2 lakh memorandums before Parliament’s both Houses passed it. The CJI at the start of the hearing said, “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.”