Challenge To Waqf Amendment Act 2025 : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing

"You can't really say if you impose a period of limitation, it would be unconstitutional" : CJI Khanna. Sibal said that the provision will legitimise encroachers of Waqf properties as they can now claim adverse possession.

Sibal: Previously, there was no limitation. Many of these waqf properties were encroached upon..

CJI: Limitation Act has its own advantage

Sibal: i am on different point, it says I have to do it within 2 years and many are not registered, how will I claim?

Sibal: referring to S.7(A), it will take 20 years

CJI: But the status quo will be maintained...Is Collector's decision amenable to Court's jurisdiction?

Sibal: section doesnt' says so

Mehta: it specifically says so

Sibal: problem is, they will say if a waqf is created 300 years ago, they will ask for deed.

Sibal: S.36, you can create by user, there is no need for property. Suppose its my own property, and I want to use it, I don't want to register

CJI: What is the problem will registration?

Sibal: i am saying waqf by user is abolished, its my integral part of religion, its recognised in Ram Janbhoomi judgment 

Sibal: its a complete takeover through nomination; see 1995 Act- S.9, all Muslims, Board provision is S. 14- all Muslims.

Sibal: come to S. 14, its also violative

J Viswanathan: Don't mix, properties can be secular. Only administration of property can fall for, don't repeatedly say essential religious practice

Sibal- Look at S.9: total membership is 22, 10 will be Muslims.

CJI: look at second proviso. does it mean only two members, excluding ex-officer, will be Muslims?

Sibal: Central Waqf Council, under 1995, all nominees were Muslim. I have chart, all Hindu or Sikh endowments, the nominees are Hindu or Sikhs- its a direct violation.

It is a parliamentary usurption of 200 million

CJI: all ancient monuments, including Jama Masjid will remain protected.

Sibal: Fifth, S.3E- now, I have a chart here with all the Muslims deemed as Scheduled Tribes

CJI: isnt' there a law which says Scheduled Tribes property cannot be transferred without [permission]