“When Hindu Code Bills Came…”: Centre Draws A Parallel To Defend Waqf Law

New Delhi:

Waqf is an Islamic idea, however it’s not a necessary a part of Islam, the Centre advised the Supreme Court docket at the moment whereas defending the Waqf Modification Act that has sparked protests and prompted a authorized problem. “Waqf is an Islamic idea, little doubt about it, however it’s not a necessary a part of Islam. Waqf will not be a elementary proper,” Solicitor Basic Tushar Mehta advised the Centre.

He stated the federal government is the custodian of property of 140 crore residents and it was the State’s responsibility to make sure that public property will not be diverted illegally. “A false narrative is created that they must present paperwork, or Waqf is captured en masse.”

Solicitor Basic Mehta stated Waqf is for charity and a Waqf board solely discharges secular capabilities. Countering the petitioners’ arguments towards together with non-Muslim members in Waqf our bodies, he stated, “Having 2 Non-Muslims, what is going to it change? It’s not touching any spiritual exercise.”

Earlier, Mr Mehta stated a couple of petitioners can’t declare to characterize your complete Muslim group. “We acquired 96 lakh representations. The JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) had 36 sittings. There have been repeated deliberations with the JPC. They took numerous inputs from totally different Muslim our bodies. Thereafter, a voluminous report was submitted, the place ideas have been accepted/rejected with causes. Then it was handed with unprecedented debate.”

As regards to ‘waqf by person’, the Centre stated that by definition, ‘waqf by person’ means the property belongs to another person and you’ve got acquired the correct by steady utilization. “If there’s a constructing which can be authorities property, can the federal government not look at whether or not the property belongs to the federal government?”

Countering the petitioners’ argument that the federal government can’t resolve its personal declare, Mr Mehta stated the income authorities would resolve whether or not it’s authorities land, however they can not resolve the title.

Chief Justice BR Gavai stated, “The image that’s being painted is that after the Collector conducts an inquiry, the property will stop to be a Waqf property and as soon as the inquiry is full, your complete property can be taken over by the federal government.” Mr Mehta replied that the federal government must file a title go well with for possession.

On the requirement that solely a practising Muslim for 5 years could make a Waqf donation, Mr Mehta stated, “Even Shariat has Part 3 that claims it’s a must to set up your self as a Muslim. It doesn’t imply it’s a must to provide namaz 5 occasions a day or not drink wine and many others. In some instances, difficulties have arisen relating to whether or not properties are topic to Waqf or not.”

Distinguishing between Hindu endowments and Waqf, Mr Mehta stated the management over Hindu endowments is “pervasive”. “Hindu spiritual endowments are solely spiritual. However Muslim Waqfs embody many secular establishments like colleges, madrasas, orphanages, dharamshalas and many others,” he stated.

Citing an instance, he stated the Bombay Public Belief Act governs temples in Maharashtra and its chairman could be of any faith.

Mr Mehta stated a Waqf has two workplaces – one of many Sajjadanashin, who’s the non secular head and performs spiritual capabilities, and the second is the workplace of Mutawalli, who isthe administrator or supervisor. “First will not be the topic of this Waqf case, as a result of this regulation has nothing to do with spiritual and non secular observe.”

Arguing that the regulation doesn’t run opposite to Article 25 of the Structure, which ensures freedom of faith, the Solicitor Basic referred to the 1956 Hindu code invoice that codified Hindu private legal guidelines. “When Hindu Code Invoice got here in 1956, the private regulation rights of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains have been taken away. Nobody stated then why solely Muslims have been left and why others weren’t?”

The Solicitor Basic cited the Tamil Nadu Endowments Act that enables the Board to take away the Mathadhipati if he violates the principles of workplace. “And right here we’re arguing whether or not a microscopic minority within the Wakf Board will violate Articles 25, 26?”

What Petitioners Have Mentioned

Listening to the petitioners’ arguments yesterday, Chief Justice of India BR Gavai stated there’s a presumption of constitutionality in laws that clears Parliament and courts “can’t intrude except a evident case is made out”. The bench additionally includes Justice AG Masih.

Showing for a petitioner, Mr Sibal stated the Act is aimed toward capturing Waqf lands. “The regulation is designed in such a means that Waqf property is taken away with out following any course of.” He additionally pointed to the situation that solely an individual practising Islam for a minimum of 5 years can create a Waqf. “If I’m on my deathbed and I wish to make a Waqf, I’ve to show that I’ve been a practising Muslim. That is unconstitutional,” he stated.

Mr Sibal stated that beneath the brand new regulation, any village panchayat or a personal particular person can increase a grievance and the property ceases to be Waqf. “The federal government officer will resolve it and can be a decide in his personal trigger. No questions requested.”

“Please keep in mind that Waqf is about my property. It is just a property owned by somebody and it can’t be of the State. Now that very property is taken away,” he stated.

Mr Sibal additionally drew a comparability between mosques and temples. “Below our Structure, the State can’t presumably finance spiritual establishments. The State can’t finance a mosque for its maintenance, a burial floor must be made by means of personal property. So folks typically on the finish of life dedicate their properties as Waqf. There is no such thing as a chadhava like in temples. Mosques and graveyards should not have Rs 2000-Rs 3000 crore corpus.” When the Chief Justice identified that grants are additionally made at dargahs, Mr Sibal stated he was speaking about mosques.