Yesterday in the morning session, the Centre while defending the #WaqfAmendmentAct argues that the “Petitions Misleading, No Wholesale Takeover Of Waqf Properties” #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfIndia Read more: https://lawbeat.in/top-stories...

Yesterday in the post-lunch session, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argues that the Waqf is not an essential religion practice, under Islam. #SupremeCourt #WaqfAmendmentAct Read details of the hearing: https://lawbeat.in/top-stories...

Matter taken up. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta continues making his submissions. SG Mehta: I will take 5-10 mins. SG Mehta: Lordships had to hear 3 days, which “EX-FACIE” means nothing unconstitutional per se. #SupremeCourt #WaqfAmendmentAct

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submits that while it is easy for anyone to raise a legal proposition, the mere possibility of an argument does not justify staying the operation of a statute duly enacted by a competent legislature. He informs the Court that he had prepared a note

Addressing the first point concerning Section 3(E), SG Mehta submitted that it pertains to the protection of Scheduled Tribes in Scheduled Areas. “Scheduled Tribes in such areas constitute a constitutionally protected class,” he says, adding that the judgments he had cited

CJI to SG Mehta: What is the rationale behind excluding Scheduled Areas under the Sixth Schedule from the Act’s application? For instance, if land was grabbed by exploiting social backwardness, then what? SG Mehta: A Waqf is dedicated to Allah-it is permanent. For interim

SG Mehta: In P. Ramareddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court held that if, after a final hearing, a law is found to violate Article 14, it can be struck down. Until then, is it so egregious that it warrants a stay today? Even if struck down later, it would still be open for

SG Mehta: I cannot purchase tribal land due to state law restrictions. If someone creates a waqf and the mutawalli misuses it, the Court can always strike it down. My Lords should consider whether the provision is truly so egregious as to warrant an immediate stay. #SupremeCourt

SG Mehta: Please consider Section 104, which has now been deleted in the 2025 Amendment. Back in 2013, even non-Muslims were permitted to create a waqf. Historically, in 1923, it was noted that waqf was sometimes used to defraud creditors. Under Section 104, for instance, I could

SG Mehta: The law does not prevent a non-Muslim from donating to a waqf. That’s also why there's a five-year requirement, you must show you're a Muslim to avoid misuse of the waqf mechanism for fraudulent purposes, a concern recognized over a century ago and still relevant today.