SC reserves interim orders in waqf case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its interim orders on three issues, including the power to denotify properties declared as “waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed” after hearing a clutch of pleas challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Before reserving the interim orders, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan and Abhishek Singhvi on behalf of those opposed to the amended waqf law and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, for about three consecutive days.
The Centre strongly defended the Act, saying waqf by its very nature is a “secular concept” and can't be stayed given the “presumption of constitutionality” in its favour.
Sibal, leading the petitioners, described the law as a "complete departure from historical legal and constitutional principles" and a means to "capture waqf through a non-judicial process".
"This is a case about the systematic capture of waqf properties. The government cannot dictate what issues can be raised," Sibal said.
The petitioners at the present stage sought interim orders on three key issues.
One of the issues related to the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed.
The second issue was over the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contend only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members whereas the last one is over the provision stipulating a waqf property won't be treated as a waqf when the collector conducts an inquiry to ascertain if the property is government land.
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.
B'luru woman files civil suit seeking ₹62 lakhs after alleged harassment by housing society members
Bengaluru: A 22-year-old woman in Bengaluru has made headlines after launching legal action against members of her housing society. She claimed trespassing, harassment, and intimidation at a private meeting at her apartment.
The incident was posted by the woman in detail in a series of posts on Reddit. It reportedly took place on a Saturday night when five of her friends visited her home. She stated that the gathering was quiet, with no music or party, and involved only cooking and conversation.
According to her account, a society member knocked on her door and objected to what he assumed was a gathering of tenants, allegedly stating that “bachelors are not allowed.” The woman claimed that she told him that she was the owner of the flat before closing the door. Soon after, four to five men entered her living room without permission, accusing her and her friends of consuming alcohol and drugs, and demanding that she leave the flat by the next day.
ALSO READ: Woman arrested for theft, stolen gold articles worth Rs 32 lakh seized
The woman said her friends intervened and forced the men out of the house. When members of the society contacted the police, the situation escalated. She claimed that the police requested her to prove ownership of the property, which she refused, claiming there was no disturbance and that the men had no right to enter her home. She also stated that CCTV cameras put in her living room captured the entire episode.
In a subsequent post, the woman said she served legal notices to the housing society and the individuals involved, accusing them of trespass, harassment and assault. She claimed the CCTV footage was shown to the builder and the society chairman, following which the accused board members were removed from their positions and fined ₹20,000 each.
She further stated that she had filed a civil suit seeking ₹62 lakh in compensation. She also demanded a permanent injunction restraining the accused from contacting her in the future. According to her lawyer, while full compensation may be unlikely, even partial damages would be significant.
The posts quickly went viral and received strong reactions on social media. Many users praised her decision to pursue legal remedies. Few others asserted that housing society members had no authority to enter a resident’s home without consent.
