By Admin 
Supreme court hearing on waqf act: On Tuesday (May 20, 2025), several petitions challenged the new Waqf Act were heard in the Supreme Court. During this, CJI BR Gawai, while referring to a temple in Khajuraho, said that the temple is under the patronage of the Archaeological Department and still people can go and worship there. On this, Kapil Sibal argued that the new law says that if this ASI is a protected area then it cannot be a waqf.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta put the side of the government in front of the bench of CJI BR Gawai and Justice AG Christ. He said that in the beginning three points were fixed. We responded to three, but the parties have also mentioned different issues from these three issues. I think the court should focus on just three issues. However, Kapil Sibal opposed the Solicitor General and said that we will argue on all issues.
What did Kapil Sibal say while arguing?
Kapil Sibal, while arguing, said that in the last hearing it was said that if the interim order needs to be issued, the court will issue. On this, SG Tushar Mehta read the previous order before the court. The Solicitor General, while reading the order, said that the government has given undertaking that the role of the board members, the role of Waqf by user and DM was talked about. These were the three issues on which the government gave undertaking.
On this matter of Solicitor General, Sibal said that hearing should be held on issuing interim order in this matter. On this, it was said by the Supreme Court that the hearing of the case should be carried forward.
‘These institutions run with charity’
Sibal said that it is illegal and is going to take away the control of Waqf property. The property to be vowed will be investigated with the possibility of any dispute. The collector will investigate and the collector is a government man. In such a situation, there is no time limit for investigation. Until the report comes, the property cannot be wakf. Whereas property is given in the name of Allah. Once it was done, it was done forever. The government cannot provide financial help in it. Sibal further said that there is no offering in mosques like temples. These institutions run with charity.
On this, the court asked that there is a climb in the dargahs. Sibal said that I am talking about mosques, the dargah is different. He said that there is a offering in temples, but not in mosques and this is ‘Waqf by user’. The Babri Masjid was also like this. There were different provisions from 1923 to 1954, but the basic principles were the same.
Sibal further said, “The new law says that as soon as any building is declared an ancient protected monument under the ASI Act, the right to Waqf will be eliminated. The new law provides that a person adopting Islam through conversion can not make the Waqf Waqf before 5 years. This provision is completely unconstitutional. This provision is completely unconstitutional. Earlier people were selected and all Muslims were rejected. Now can be non -Muslims. “
When Khajuraho was mentioned during the hearing
On this, the CJI said that there is a temple in Khajuraho under the patronage of the Archaeological Department, yet people can go there and worship. On this, Sibal argued that the new law says that if this ASI is a protected area then it cannot be a waqf.
The bench asked if it takes away your right to follow religion? Can you not go there and pray? Sibal said that yes, it states that the declaration of Waqf property is zero. If it is zero then how can I go there? The CJI further said, “I visited the temple, which is under ASI, but devotees can go and worship there. So does such an announcement take away your right to worship?”
Sibal said that if you say that Waqf is zero then it is no longer Waqf. I say that this provision violates Article 25. There is no judicial process and then you force Waqf to go to court and challenge the collector’s decision and as long as the decision comes, the property is no longer the Waqf.
Also read: ‘There is no offering here like temples’, CJI Gavai said on Kapil Sibal’s argument but I have seen in the dargahs …