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

SG Mehta: the commissioner- they only deal with religious bodies- it include religious and charitable purposes in all Hindu endowments act- I made an inaccurate statement

Dwivedi: no question of Article 14 in comparing Parliamentary law with laws of States

presumption of validity of law, also fell from CJI, this presumption does not arise from principles emanating from evidence act but the constitutional principles- the Parliament exercises will of people and has the sovereignty. There has to be a very strong case to be made out ex facie.

Dwivedi: I adopt all submissions of SG but on legal plain, our constitution adopts federal principle that one law of a state cannot be compared to other law, but here Parliamentary law is being compared to States endowments acts

Dwivedi: law of Prescription and adverse possesion are through which waqf by user is adopted, post-Independence era, the waqf by user was expanded through statutorily principle in 1954 for all religious and charitable purpose.

In 1995 Act, they did away with limitation- some reference by petitioners that it will impact Places of Worship Act- look in the place of Worship Act things are freezed, but here with waqf by user they continuously expanded

Dwivedi: they brought in the waqf by user by one sentence, outside the Indian subcontinent, it was introduced as principle of adverse possession.

Sr Adv Rajeev Dwivedi, State of Raj: waqf by user is not core practice of Islam-3 judgments referred in Ram Janbhoomi judgment that waqf by user was not introduced as an Islamic principle- In privy council case, see how it was introduced in indian soil

CJI: All have to conclude by 1

SG Mehta: if as Muslim, I have to go to prescribed authority for marriage, divorice- same is for waqf only additional condition is 5 years to not defeat someone's rightful claim by creating waqf

On essential religious practice- pure constitutional question- i have cited Shrur Mutt etc- there were some petitions, i dont represent them- they challenged 1995 Act

CJI: Vishnu Shankar Jain, in 2025 they want us to see challenge to 1995 Act, we will not listen, we will not entertain petitions challenging

SG Mehta: want to make it clear, their argument is since they were sent to HCs, we should also be sent to HC- I am not supporting this- please hear in Article 32..

also, they referred to Janbhoomi judgment- waqf by user accepted, it was said under the Act as it was existed- waqf by user was there in the 1954 Act-i am not disputing but now its deleted. It never said its an essential religious practice it was statutorily recognised practice can be taken away

SG Mehta: If I want to use Sharia Act, I have to prove I am Muslims- we don't have any other personal law because others are codified- Sharia is applicable as personal law to all Muslims

S. 3 Sharia Act

Ahmadi: petitions challenging bar to the Scheduled Tribes Area

SG Mehta: kindly take Sharia Act- earlier from 2023, the person has to be Muslim, nobody objected. now it says, the person has to be practising- they can wait, the Rules will come

SG Mehta: S. 108-1995 Act- we are arguing on academic challenges- what is evacuee property?..

CJI: Regarding tribals, your argument was the same

SG Mehta: if one person does not like it, he does not represent the entire community

Sr Adv Huzefa Ahmadi: there are petitions from the tribal community [supporting the act]