Supreme hearing on Waqf LIVE: Kapil Sibal’s sharp arguments in court, know what is going on

• Kapil Sibal: Protesting that we will argue on all issues. Like Madinars, 2000-3000 crores in mosques do not come in donations. They say, the previous Act required registration and because you did not register- it would not be considered a waqf. Some 100, 200 and 500 years ago were created.
• CJI: Does registration require? On this, Sibal said that it was, but there was no result for not registering. CJI said that you have to start with A, B, C, D, was registration mandatory?
• Kapil Sibal: ‘Karega’ was used.
• CJI: Only because ‘it’ has been used in it, it is not mandatory unless the results are provided.
• Sibal: The result was not that the nature of Waqf would change- that it would not be considered Waqf.

• CJI: In 2013, there was a provision for registration of Waqf. No result was given for non-non-transportation other than removing Mutwali.
• Sibal: Waqf is responsible for registration; Waqf’s character will not change. This, the Act of 2025 changes the character.
• CJI: We are taking it on record. Was not required for Waqf by users during 2013? Was it acceptable?
• ⁠ Sibble: Yes, this is an established practice. There is no need to register Waqf by user.
• CJI: Said that there was no need to register Waqf by user before 2013, we are taking on records.

The Center urged the Supreme Court that the hearing should be limited to three identified issues to pass the interim order on petitions challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act. These issues also include the right to non-reflecting the assets declared by the court ‘Waqf, Waqf by user or Waqf by deed’. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Center from the bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gawai and Justice Augustine George Christ, urged that he be limited to the proceedings set by the earlier bench.

• CJI: After 1923, was it necessary?
• Sibal: No two dates 1904 and 1958- Ancient Monument Act Protection Act- both belong to ancient monuments- when the 1904 Act came- Act did not interfere- for example, Jama Masjid- Sarkar can say that it can preserve it and therefore notify it that it can be declared an ancient monument. No ownership was transferred.
• CJI: Does this stop following religion? Are you prevented from going there and praying. I recently visited Khajuraho. There is still a temple there under the protection of archeology and all the devotees can go there and pray.
• Sibal: This provision is a violation of Article 25. The government has taken Waqf from itself from the amendment. After this, if someone is a Scheduled Tribe Muslim and wants to make a Waqf … then such a property is not a Waqf and it is directly acquired and the rights are taken away under Article 25.
• CJI: Recorded
• Sibal: Argued that earlier registration was not mandatory, it was voluntary. If registration was not done under the previous Act, the results were not provided. In 2013, there was a provision for the registration of Waqf, in addition to removing Mutavalli, no result was provided for non-non-transportation. This is Waqf by user – from 1913 to 2013. However, there was a provision for registration of Waqf. Apart from removing Mutavalli, there were no consequences for non-transportation.

After the Waqf is taken away, they cannot go there and pray …

• CJI: Sibal’s argument recorded that the right to follow religion is affected and after the Waqf is taken away, he cannot go there and pray. Continuing prayer is in danger, so the right of religion is affected.
• Sibal: A provision has been argued that a Muslim should follow Islam for at least five years before being eligible to donate property for Waqf. Earlier members of the board were Muslims. Now non -Muslim nominees are members.
• CJI: There is a perception of constitutionality for the law and until no clear case comes up, the courts cannot intervene, we have been taught this from college.
• Sibal: There is no judicial process and then you force Waqf to go to court and challenge the collector’s decision and as long as the decision comes, the property is no longer the Waqf.

One issue is the right to noted the assets declared by the court ‘Waqf, Waqf by user or Waqf by deed’. The second issue raised by the petitioners is related to the structure of the State Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they argue that only Muslims should work in it except ex -officio members. The third issue is related to a provision, stating that when the collector investigates to find out whether the property is a government land or not, the Waqf property will not be considered as Waqf. The hearing is going on. Sibal began to present arguments and mentioned the background of the case. On 17 April last, the Center assured the apex court that by May 5, it would neither indulge in Waqf Bai Users, including Waqf properties, nor would he make any appointment in the Central Waqf Council and Boards.

• Supreme Court : During the pending case, the property position changes under 3 (C) and the possession of the Waqf ends.
• Sibal : Yes, it is no longer a waqf before the investigation starts.
• CJI Gawai’s important oral comment from Sibal: There is a notion of constitutionality for the law passed by Parliament and until a clear case is made, the courts cannot interfere. This is what we have been taught from college. You have to make a strong case to get a stop order c. Especially in today’s … in the present context. There is no need to say anything else.
• Sibal: Why should I show the government that I am a Muslim. Who will decide this and why should I wait for 5 years. This is a violation of Articles 14, 25 and 26.
• Sibal: Now the Waqf by user has been removed. It can never be removed. It is dedicated to God, it can never end. Now it is ensuring that only those Waqf by users will be left who is registered.
• Sibal: Another provision has been brought, the name and address of the waqf, the way of Waqf and the date of Waqf have been sought, how will people have this? The Waqf made 200 years ago is present and if they do not give this, then Mutavalli will have to go to jail for 6 months. This stream of law violates rights, it is unjust and arbitrary and a violation of rights.
• Sibal: The ASI case also includes Sambhal’s Jama Masjid. Registration was made mandatory in 1954. Registration of Waqf was made mandatory, but no result was made due to non -registration. There is an interesting thing. See ASI’s website. As soon as it was preserved, the Waqf status went. It also includes Sambhal’s Jama Masjid. It is very disturbing.

Kapil Sibal said that 3 (D) and E were broadcast in the bill in the form of Section and were included in Parliament before voting. It was not even before the JPC, there was no discussion.

The court said that it was not discussed even before Parliament? Sibal said that when the final bill was passed, he introduced the amendment. Speakers can amend the rules. ⁠ You suspend the rules just before voting and present it. This is disturbing, we cannot challenge the law on the basis of malicious.

SG – Record his statement that it was not discussed in Parliament

SC – We have recorded.

SG – If it affects validity, then I will answer.

• Sibal: Until it is registered, I cannot even file a lawsuit. My right to sue has also been taken away. This is a severe violation.
• CJI: There was also a provision for registration in earlier acts. Therefore, all the Waqf registered before this Act will not be affected by this provision. Waqf who was required to be registered and did not happen.
• Sibal:What would happen if there is a dispute?