Advocate: I have filed a petition for the Union and State to complete survey

Advocate: Had Union and State completed survey within 1 year, nothing sort of this has come...corresponding duty of state has miserably failed. They are trying to put Muttawalli in different light

CJI: In the bits of arguments, somebody rises and ... Advocate: Direction was given by J Sundresh to mention before this Court- 25 April, 2025 order

CJI: We are only concerned whether 2025 Act should be stayed or not; proceed Mr Mehta SG Mehta: will conclude in 10 minutes; Lordship had to hear 3 days which ex facie means nothing unconstitutional per se

SG Mehta: it is not difficult for anyone to raise proposition but merely because it could be argued does not mean it deserves to be stay of a validity passed statute by competent legislature

SG Mehta: I prepared note- it only contains law, no fact on the three issues earlier argued. 1. S 3(E)- for protection of tribes, scheduled tribes in scheduled areas are constitutionally protected class, sum and substance of judgments I referred is that its constitutionally

CJI: What is the nexus of not making application of Act to Scheduled VI? Instance, if lands were grabbed taking advantage of social backwardness, then?

SG Mehta: waqf is to Allah, it goes forever. for purpose of interim order, if found unconstitutional, it can be quashed. but if a waqf is there, it will be an irreversible situation. JCP says tribals may follow Islam but they have their separate cultural identity. J Masih: Does

SG Mehta: I am saying- would that be a ground to stay when I have not given an opportunity to be heard? I could have filed statistics

SG Mehta: they can always create a trust

SG Mehta: P Ramareddy v. Andhra Pradesh referred: After final hearing that this may not muster under Article 14, mylords can strike down and it would be open for them to create waqf- Is it so egregious that it needs to be stayed today?