Key Points:
- Supreme Court heard over 70 petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act in a marathon session.
- CJI Sanjeev Khanna asked if Muslims would be allowed in Hindu institutions, questioning the Act’s reciprocity.
- Court expressed concern over collector’s power to decide Waqf property disputes instead of judiciary.
- Petitioners argued the new composition (10 Muslims out of 22 members) violates religious autonomy under Article 26.
- Court revealed that even Delhi High Court is reportedly situated on Waqf land, highlighting the complexity.
New Delhi: In a significant judicial proceeding, the Supreme Court of India conducted an extensive hearing on the controversial Waqf Amendment Act, with Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna posing pointed questions to the government about religious autonomy and institutional governance.
CJI’s Pointed Question on Religious Reciprocity
The hearing took a dramatic turn when CJI Khanna directly challenged Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with a question that cut to the heart of the controversy: “Can you say that from now on Muslims will also be included in Hindu institutions and they can become a part of them?”
This question came after senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, raised concerns about Hindu participation in Waqf Boards. The Chief Justice’s query highlighted the fundamental issue of religious autonomy and reciprocity in institutional governance.
Dispute Resolution Powers Under Scrutiny
A major point of contention in the hearing was the Act’s provision giving district collectors the authority to decide disputes related to Waqf properties. CJI Khanna questioned this approach, asking why such matters couldn’t remain under judicial purview.
“Why can’t the court decide on Waqf properties?” the Chief Justice asked, expressing concern about removing these disputes from judicial oversight.
In response, Solicitor General Mehta clarified that collectors would only have registration powers, not adjudicatory ones. “The collector has been given the right to register Waqf properties. Registration of Waqf property has always been mandatory, and this process also takes place under Waqf by User. The same provision was there in the 1995 law,” Mehta explained.
Board Composition and Religious Autonomy
The petitioners, led by Sibal and Singhvi, argued that the amended Act fundamentally alters the composition of Waqf Boards, reducing Muslim representation to just 10 members out of 22. This, they contended, violates the right to religious autonomy guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution.
“This is a direct infringement on the community’s right to manage its own religious affairs,” Sibal argued, noting that Waqf institutions are intrinsically tied to Islamic religious practices.
The government countered that the Muslim community has shown limited interest in Waqf administration, and the new Act provides the option to form separate trusts if desired.
Potential Impact on Waqf Properties
In a startling revelation, Singhvi informed the court that approximately 4 lakh out of 8 lakh Waqf properties across India could be affected by the new legislation. This prompted CJI Khanna to note that even the Delhi High Court itself reportedly stands on Waqf land.
“I am not saying there is a problem in all Waqf ‘by user’ cases, but some cases are really a matter of concern,” the Chief Justice observed, acknowledging the complexity of the issue.
Path Forward: High Court Referral
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court indicated it might refer these petitions to a High Court for initial consideration. “The matter will be considered only after the decision of the High Court,” the bench noted, suggesting a longer legal journey ahead for this contentious legislation.
“There are some positive aspects in this Act, but there are also some worrying points,” CJI Khanna remarked, summarizing the court’s preliminary assessment.
The hearing highlighted the delicate balance between religious autonomy and government regulation, with significant implications for thousands of properties and religious institutions across India. As the legal challenge proceeds, the fate of the Waqf Amendment Act remains uncertain, with fundamental questions about religious governance and property rights still to be resolved.
