Waqf Amendment Act Challenge : Live Updates From Suprem Court [Hearing On Interim Order -Day 3]

Singhvi: Bombay Trust Act- S. 31 nowhere near S. 36(10) no suit- this is a wrong example

JPC point given is misleading- Kalpana Mehta 2018 judgment- 449.6 para- also followed in Delhi Assembly matter- any observation in report or inference cannot be held binding- here no clause by clause discussion, two clauses came later, many suspended

Singhvi: 36(1) completely retrospective in all times-

S. 9 and 14- my learned friend reads as maximum- again his benevolence cannot change the statute- the no. is clear

Singhvi: Sharia was misleading argument, in all legislations like in Jain, Christian, it begins with practising jain, or Christian

Singhvi: he gives less then half truth- a Muslim professing Muslim faith is a common expression used- there is no Act which says Muslim professing faith for 5 years and satisfy there is no contrivance

Singhvi: contrivance is a reverse burden of proof that I have no contrivance

I am the only faith which is being asked to do- direct Article 15, overarching.

Singhvi: apart from Ramjanbhoomi judgment, the HCs have consistently held absence of registration does not affect the character of property - 4 cases from Karnataka, Kerala, Allahabad, and Andhra

Singhvi: counter quoted- 36(1), 36(7A), 36(10)- see the vicious circle- 3r makes a clumsy attempt to save something with caveat 'dispute' in the proviso- I can understand primary adjudication but the caveat takes away everything.

Singhvi: now arc is complete because they say, now you cannot register...this is bizarre situation chasing your tail- this is admission by Mr Mehta, see the clever language- 36(1)(A) Collector says one think- i believe its gov property- the process stop and then read 36(10) which says within 6 months you cannot register

Singhvi: they say this is similar to bombay trust act, 36(10) says you cannot register after 6 months- Mr Mehta's on the spot benevolence will not save the statute

CJI: why why? you read it harmoniously

Singhvi: 3r does give some saving- 36(1) then says do something in x or y months under S. 9 and 10[process for registration] but if there is mention of gov property,t the registration will stop- 7A will stop the entire process of S. 36

2. this registration- its a connected aspect- it existed earlier but point is the arch you created to take the status of an entity, is grossly wrong. Registration was there, petty penalty recognised.

See 36(1)-every waqf created before or after commencement shall be registered- this Act makes vicious circle. waqf by user is abolished by same act and hence, they cannot be registered- you cannot register something which is abolished