Sibal: expropriation on the face of it, we have given scheduled of tribes of all Muslim population
CJI: all waqf created earlier will also [go]?
Sibal: this is 3(D)- 2025 Act, next proposition- 5 years practice as Muslim before I can create a waqf- who will decide that? I guess they will come home...3(r)..if I am on my deathbed, then I will have to demonstrate them- per se unconstitutional. It is my right under 25, 26 and you take that way through definition
SC and ST- in those areas, these properties will be declared not to be waqf 3(E) [reads it]
Sibal: collorary to this proposition, my right to religious worship was preserved under 1904 and 1958 Act
CJI: under the said act, the right to religious practice was preserved
Sibal: my case- this provision is violative of Article 25
CJI: Right of citizens to continue with their religious practice will be taken away and therefore, violative of Articles 25 and 26 ...Mr Mehta record it..
SG Mehta: we are recording, factually incorrect
CJI: We are not asking that
CJI: Khajuraho, I visited recently, under custody of archaeology, still there is temple and all devotees can go and pray
Sibal: complete takeover and overship now if its an ancient monument
CJI: are you stop from going there and pray?
Should we record that..on such declaration as ancient/protected monument/area under 1904 and 1958 Act, ...does it also take away your right to practice?
CJI: So, after 1923, it was necessary?
Sibal: 3. no two dates 1904 and 1958- Ancient Monuments Act Preservation Act- both dealing with ancient monuments- when 1904 Act came- the Act didnt' interfere- for instance, Jama Masjid- the gov can say it can preserve and therefore notify that it can be declared as ancient monument. No ownership was transferred
CJI: Only after 1954, it became necessary
Sibal: there is some confusion, please say after 1923 the registration was necessary...
CJI: so much pressure,
Sibal: so many discordant voices I hear
CJI: First we will record your proposition
SG Mehta: Mr sibal is continuously being disturbed
CJI: Prior to 1954, registration of waqf by user was necessary?
J Masih: you didn't understand the question
Sibal: after 1954, the registration was mandatory
CJI: for waqf by user as well?
Sibal: yes, mutawali had to register
Sibal: 2. if there is waqf by user, you will have to tell who established it.
CJI: During 2013, a registration was not necessary for waqf by user? was it permissible
Sibal: yes, its established practice- waqf by user need not to be registered
CJI: waqf by user prior to 2013 was not required to be registered [records it]