Opposition welcomes Supreme Court's interim stay on key Waqf Act provisions

Opposition parties also welcomed the SC's interim order that waqf properties, including "waqf by user", will not be denotified until May 5

Congress and other Opposition parties that had voted against the Waqf (Amendment) Act passed in the Budget session of Parliament welcomed the Supreme Court’s order on Thursday which had the Centre record its assurance that Waqf properties, including “Waqf by user” will not be denotified, nor appointments be made to Waqf councils and boards till the next hearing of the case on May 5.

 

Congress Rajya Sabha member one of the counsels for the petitioners in the case Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the media that the party welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim stay on some of the provisions of the Act, which he said violated Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution. “You cannot amputate Article 26 and call it administrative efficiency,” he said.

 

 

Singhvi said that the Supreme Court had put an interim stay on provisions 9 and 14 of the Act, which relate to the composition of the central Waqf council and Waqf boards. These provisions, he said, allow for the bizarre possibility that 12 of 22 members of the central Waqf council and seven out of 11 members of Waqf boards could be non-Muslims.

 

“Can you imagine a Hindu temple board with a majority of non-Hindus or a Sikh gurdwara committee dominated by non-Sikhs,” he asked, stating that the Congress was “grateful” to the Supreme Court for its interim order.

 

“A board with a token Muslim representation is another form of appropriation. It is about a message that minority institutions are fair game for state takeover,” Singhvi said, adding that the Act was not just legally flawed but morally vacuous. He said the Congress wasn’t defending one community or religion but the constitutional principle of Article 26, which “cannot be sacrificed at the altar of majoritarian convenience”.

 

Singhvi said that he hoped the apex court will also look at other problematic aspects of the Act in its next hearing, such as mandating that 100 per cent of Waqf boards’ members be nominated by state governments “which effectively destroys democratic participation in the formation of state Waqf boards”, he said.

 

“Waqf by user” refers to a practice where a property is recognised as a religious or charitable endowment (Waqf) based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there isn’t a formal, written declaration of Waqf by the owner. The Centre notified the Act which received assent of the President on April 5.

 

Other Opposition parties also welcomed the Supreme Court’s interim order. Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s Kerala state secretary M V Govindan said that the order was an effective defence against the Centre’s “arbitrary” anti-secular decision to amend the Waqf Act. In Kochi, Congress general secretary (organisation) K C Venugopal said that the Supreme Court’s interim order was a win for the party, democracy, and the Constitution.

 

Indian Union Muslim League general secretary P K Kunhalikutty said that the apex court, as an interim measure, stopped implementation of certain provisions of the Act which indicated that the matter was being heard in an unbiased manner. He added that it needed to be seen what the final decision would be.

 

Around 70 petitions, including by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen leader Asaduddin Owaisi, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, and Congress members of Parliament Imran Pratapgarhi and Mohammed Jawed, were filed against the law. Senior counsels, including Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, and Huzefa Ahmadi appeared for the petitioners in the case.