Waqf Amendment Act Challenge : Live Updates From Supreme Court

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]