Waqf case: Centre urges SC to confine proceedings to three issues for passing interim orders
New Delhi (PTI): The Centre on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to confine the hearing on pleas challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act for passing interim orders to three issues, including the power to denotify properties declared as “waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih was asked by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to confine the proceedings identified by the earlier bench.
“The court had earmarked three issues. We had filed our response to these three issues. However, the written submissions of the petitioners now exceed several other issues. I have filed my affidavit in response to these three issues. My request is to confine it to the three issues only,” the law officer said.
The submission was opposed by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for those challenging the provisions of the 2025 law, that there cannot be any piecemeal hearing.
One of the issues is the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed.
The second issue raised by the petitioners relates to the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contend only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members.
The third issue relates to a provision that says a waqf property will not be treated as a waqf when the collector conducts an inquiry to ascertain if the property is government land.
The hearing is underway and Sibal commenced advancing submissions and is referring to the background of the case.
On April 17, the Centre assured the top court that it would neither denotify waqf properties, including "waqf by user", nor make any appointments to the central waqf council and boards till May 5.
The Centre had opposed the apex court's proposal to pass an interim order against the denotification of waqf properties, including "waqf by user" aside from staying a provision allowing the inclusion of non-Muslims in the central waqf councils and boards.
On April 25, the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs filed a preliminary 1,332-page affidavit defending the amended Waqf Act of 2025 and opposed any "blanket stay" by the court on a "law having presumption of constitutionality passed by Parliament".
The Centre notified the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 last month after it got President Droupadi Murmu's assent on April 5.
The bill was cleared by Lok Sabha with the support of 288 members while 232 MPs were against it. The Rajya Sabha saw 128 members voting in its favour and 95 against it.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
UP court rejects plea seeking Rahul Gandhi's voice sample in defamation case
Sultanpur (UP) (PTI): A local MP/MLA court on Saturday rejected a plea seeking a voice sample of Rae Bareli MP Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case filed by a BJP functionary against the Congress leader, and posted the matter for next hearing on May 11.
The plea, filed by BJP leader Vijay Mishra through his counsel Santosh Kumar Pandey, had sought Gandhi's voice sample for a forensic test to compare it with an audio clip.
After the petition was dismissed, Pandey said they would file a revision plea before the sessions court against the order.
The court rejected the plea after hearing the arguments of both sides, including Gandhi's counsel Kashi Prasad Shukla.
The matter dates back to 2018 when Mishra, a local BJP leader, filed a defamation suit over Gandhi’s alleged objectionable remarks targeting Amit Shah while campaigning for the Karnataka Assembly elections.
After five years of legal proceedings, the court issued a warrant against Gandhi in December 2023.
The Rae Bareli MP surrendered before the court in February 2024, and was granted bail on two sureties of Rs 25,000 each by a special magistrate.
On July 26 last year, the Congress leader recorded his statement before the court, claiming innocence and calling the case a political conspiracy.
Earlier this year, multiple hearings were postponed due to a strike by lawyers and the ill-health of Gandhi’s counsel.
