Chief Justice Bhushan on Thursday (August 14, 2025) on petitions seeking to restore full state status for Jammu and Kashmir Ramakrishna Gavai (CJI BR Gavai) Hearing Pahalgam Referred to the terrorist attack and said that it cannot be ignored.

Justice CJI Gawai And Justice K Vinod Chandra’s bench was hearing the case. When the petitioner requested a early hearing, the CJI said, “You cannot ignore what happened in Pahalgam … It is the job of Parliament and Executive.” The bench said that we have to pay attention to the ground truths while considering this matter. The incidents that have taken place recently cannot be ignored.

The Center said- the situation strange in Jammu and Kashmir
Demanding to restore state status for Jammu and Kashmir Petitioner To keep the side of Senior Advocate gopal Shankaranarayan Presented and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Was arguing on behalf of the center. SG Mehta Opposed to these petitions and said, ,We assured to give state status after the election, but this country Part The situation is strange. I do not understand why there is so much ruckus about it. Why this issue is being raised right now,

What did the petitioner say?
Advocate gopal Shankaranarayan Referred to the order of the Supreme Court of 2023, in which the court accepted the government’s decision to cancel Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir and said that the status of the state was given. He said that the court was confident that the government for Jammu and Kashmir Statehood Will restore, but this has not been done even after the election and now 21 months have passed for that order of the court. Court Both The hearing has been postponed for eight weeks after hearing the arguments of the parties. Court one school teacher Zahoor Ahmed Bhat And Activist Khurshid Ahmed He was hearing the petition.

Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gawai Hearing a case on Thursday (August 7, 2025), he said that he YouTube Do not see nor interviews or press reports Decide a case on the basis of. He reads only newspapers daily. He made this comment when it was argued in the court that when a big leader conducts raids here, Narrator is fabricated through interviews on YouTube channels.

CJI B R Gawai, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Dinner Chandran For the bench Bhushan Power and Steel Limited JSW Steel was hearing a review petition related to the Samadhan Yojana. This petition has been filed against the old order of the Supreme Court, in which the Samadhan Yojana was rejected.

Committee Four Credits On behalf of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta He appeared and told the court that Enforcement The Directorate seized 23 thousand crore rupees Money earned by doing dishonest things Fraud Is divided among the victims of During this time CJI Gawai Done SG Mehta Asked that Ed of Blame How much is the rate Accused How many of them have proved to be defect.

CJI Gawai Tushar in response to the question of Mehta Said that this is a different issue. However, he citing large scale recovery Ed Defeated He said that these successes of the agency are not known because of the media.

SG Tushar Mehta Said that even in punishable offenses Blame The rate of this is very low and he cited the flaws in the criminal justice system of the country as the main reason for this. Present during hearing Senior Law Officer Said, “There are some cases in which the leaders raided here, due to huge amount of cash, our (note count) machines stopped working … We had to bring a new machine.” He said that when some big leaders are caught YouTube Interviews Something through Nectaries Set Are done

CJI B R Gawai On this said, ‘We Nectaries Do not decide matters on the basis of … I News The channel does not watch. I see only 10-15 minutes of newspapers headlines in the morning. Law Officer Said that he knows that the judge Social Being fabricated outside media and courts Nectaries Do not make matters on the basis of.

Many benches of Supreme Court, especially opposition leaders, Money laundering In cases of Enforcement She has been criticizing the alleged arbitrariness of the directorate. CJI B R Gawai of Lead The bench said in another case on 21 July that Enforcement The directorate is crossing all limits.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Thursday (August 7, 2025) that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) distributed black money worth about Rs 23,000 crore to those who are suffering from financial fraud.

According to the report of PTI, the top law officer made this statement in front of the Special Bench of Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai and Jasstishish Chandra Sharma. The bench was hearing petitions requesting reconsideration on the controversial decision of May 2 of the Supreme Court.

On May 2, the Supreme Court rejected the JSW Steel Samadhan Yojana for Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (BSPL) and described it as a violation of the Insolvency and Debt Laundering Code (IBC). The court ordered the liquidation of BSPL under the IBC.

The bench headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai on 31 July withdrew the decision and decided to renew the reconsideration petitions related to it. During the hearing on these petitions, a lawyer also cited an investigation of the Enforcement Directorate in the BPSL case.

The Chief Justice took a dig at this and said, ‘ED is also present here.’ In response, the Solicitor General said, “I want to tell a fact that has never been said in any court and that is … The ED has recovered Rs 23,000 crore (black money) and given it to the victims.” The law officer said that the recovered money does not remain in the government treasury and is given to the victims of financial crimes.

CJI BR Gawai asked, what is the rate of punishment? ‘ SG Tushar Mehta said that the rate of punishment in punitive crimes is also very low and he cited the flaws of the country’s criminal justice system as the main reason for this. To this, the Chief Justice said, “Even though he has not been convicted, you have been successful in punishing him (the accused) almost without any hearing.”

In the petitions filed against the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, the law has been described as a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. Article 25 gives the right to guarantee the freedom of religion. The Center has given a strong reply to this plea of ​​the petitioners. On behalf of the Center, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said in the Supreme Court that Hindu code bill was brought and the rights of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhist community were taken away, then no one said why Muslims were released.

A bench of Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gawai and Justice Augustine George Christ reserved the verdict on Thursday (May 22, 2025) after three days of hearing. In the first day’s hearing, the petitioners made their arguments, while on May 21 and 22, the lawyers appearing for the Center and other states presented their stand in defense of the law.

On behalf of the Center, SG Tushar Mehta said that the new Waqf law is not contrary to Article 25 of the Constitution. He mentioned the Hindu Code Bill, which was brought to codes the rights of Hindus. He said, ‘When the Hindu Code Bill was introduced in the year 1956, their personal law rights were taken away from Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jainism. Then no one said why Muslims were released and not others?

The purpose of the Hindu Code Bill was to create a codes and modern Hindu personal laws in a general civil code. This included women rights in property, equal divorce rights and other provisions on subjects like marriage, divorce, succession and adoption.

SG Tushar Mehta gave the example of the Tamil Nadu Endowment Act on the issue of the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Board, which allows the removal of the monastery on violation of rules. He said that and we are arguing here that Articles 25 and 26 will be violated by the inclusion of non-Muslims.

Tushar Mehta, stating the difference between Hindu settlement and waqf, said that Hindu settlement is only religious work. They do religious work, but the Waqf also includes secular institutions like schools, madrasa, orphanages and dharamshalas. Referring to the Bombay Public Trust Act, he said that it controls the temples of Maharashtra and there is a arrangement that the chairman can be from any religion, whereas it is not in Waqf.

SG Tushar Mehta said that Waqf consists of two officers, one Sajjadanshin, who is a spiritual head and sees the functioning related to religion. The second is, Mutavalli, who is an administrator or manager. He said that Sajjadanshin is not a subject in the Waqf Amendment Act, because this law has nothing to do with spiritual or religious functioning.

After the approval of President Draupadi Murmu on April 5, 2025, the Waqf Amendment Act came into force in the country, but many petitioners reached the Supreme Court demanding an interim ban on it. In the first hearing on 16 April, the bench of former Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna heard 72 petitions and banned the new appointment in the board till the next hearing. At the same time, the status quo was also asked to maintain the status quo on the declared property declared.

Justice Sanjeev Khanna had transferred the case to the bench of the new CJI BR Gawai before his retirement. From 20 May to 22 May, the bench of CJI Gawai heard the Waqf law case for three days.

Also read:-
Shri Banke Bihari Temple Corridor of Rs 500 crore, who is forming UP government, reached the Supreme Court to protest, Devendra Nath Goswami, said to CJI Gawai- I am a descendant …

The Supreme Court has reserved the order on the issue of interim relief in the Waqf Amendment Act case. The bench of Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai and Justice Augustin George Christ heard for 3 consecutive days. The court told the petitioners seeking a ban on the law that the law made from Parliament is considered constitutional till the final decision is taken. A very strong base will be required to stop its provisions.

On the first day of the hearing, 5 senior lawyers cross -examined the petitioner side. On the second and third day, the central government and some state governments responded. After this, once again about 2 hours the petitioner side spoke. Senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Hujifa Ahmadi and CU Singh debated on behalf of the petitioners. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, mainly on behalf of the central government, presented the side. Senior lawyers Ranjit Kumar, Rakesh Dwivedi, Maninder Singh and Gopal Shankaranarayan made brief arguments in their support.

The petitioner side opposed things such as making the registration of Waqf by users mandatory, the government’s decision in the property dispute of the Waqf Board, making non -Muslims members members in the Waqf Board, the possibility of religious activity in ancient monuments, the condition of being a Muslim for 5 years and the Waqf Board on the tribal land to stop the Waqf Board. He was described as discrimination from Muslims and interference in religious matters.

On the other hand, the Central Government cited the law to enact a law after following the entire process on behalf of Parliament. The Center said that it would not be right to stop the sections of the law before the final hearing. Those who have brought the petition here are not personally affected. He is not a representative of the entire Muslim community. The law has been made in public interest. The discrepancies of the old Waqf law have been removed.

The government said that Waqf is not an essential part of Islam. It cannot be given the status like fundamental rights. The registration of Waqf by user was also kept necessary in the 1923 law. People who have not registered for 102 years, are still protesting. If the property is not their, then it should be used in social interest.

Earlier, only Muslims could do Waqf. But in the Waqf Act 2013, the provision of the property of non -Muslims was also made. To improve this, a condition has been laid for at least 5 years to be a Muslim. Constitution also gives protection to the land of tribals. The same has also been done in this law. Limited members in the Waqf Board will be non -Muslims, whose role will also be very limited. There will be no difference from new Waqf law on religious activities in ancient monuments.

Waqf Board claims on the entire village!
At the end of the hearing, a lawyer spoke about a village in Tamil Nadu in the court. He told that there is a 1500 -year -old temple in the village. Hindus have been living there for centuries. But the Waqf Board is claiming on the land of the entire village. This has also happened in other parts of the country. The new law gives legal solutions for such situations. Therefore, do not stop the court law.

Also read:-
WAQF Amendment Act: Debate in Waqf Amendment Act case completes, Supreme Court reserved decision

Waqf amendment act, 2025: On Wednesday (May 21, 2025), the Center presented its stand in the Supreme Court in hearing petitions filed to challenge the Waqf Amendment Act. The Center said that Waqf is an Islamic concept, but it is not an essential part of Islam. The Center also said that charity is part of every religion, but the Supreme Court says that this is not necessary for anyone.

On Tuesday, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rajiv Dhawan argued on behalf of the petitioners. Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared in the Supreme Court to present the side of the Center. In front of the bench of Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai and Justice Augustin George Christ, SG Tushar Mehta responded to the objection of the petitioners, stating that the new Waqf law violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

According to the report of the Bar and Bench, SG Tushar Mehta said, “I did not know about this part of Islam until I did not do research that Waqf is an Islamic concept, but it is not an essential part of Islam.” He said that the concept of charity is present in every religion. Even in Christianity, but the Supreme Court says that this is not necessary for anyone. SG Tushar Mehta said that there are things like donating among Hindus and the same is in Sikhism, but in any religion it has not been said to be necessary.

SG Mehta said that if the financial situation of most people of the Muslim community is not very good and they are unable to do waqf, will they not be Muslims. This is a test conducted by the Supreme Court, to determine whether a practice is an essential religious practice. He said that it is not necessary to do charity in any religion, similarly there is Waqf in Islam.

SG Tushar Mehta said that Waqf by user is not a fundamental right. It was recognized by law in 1954 and before that in the Bengal Act. Referring to a decision, he said that if any right has been provided by law in the form of legislative policy, it can be taken away by the state forever.

Also read:-
SG Mehta spoke to the petitioners who questioned the Waqf Amendment Act- the law had a problem since 1923, you yourself …

During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 21, 2025) on the petitions filed against the Waqf Amendment Act, the Center said that no petitioner is personally affected by the law. He said that only some people cannot become representatives of the entire Muslim community by filing a petition. He cannot say that the whole Muslim community also thinks the things they have problems.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Center. He said that the Parliament enacted a law and made suggestions of millions of people before making laws. SG Mehta said that some people cannot call themselves representatives of the entire Muslim community and the Waqf law had been decreasing since 1923, which has been repaired.

The case was also heard on Tuesday, in which senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rajiv Dhawan argued on behalf of the petitioners. Today, SG Tushar Mehta, while favoring the Center, said that from 1923 to 1995 law was the law that only Muslims could have walked, but before the elections in 2013, the law was made that anyone could do waqf. He said that the government has improved it and a condition has been placed to follow Islam for at least 5 years to wake up.

SG Tushar Mehta said, ‘If someone is using some place, he does not have paper in that place and claims that it is an unregistered Waqf by user. If the property is government in the government’s records, will it not be investigated? The petitioners had objected to the registration of the property in the hearing yesterday and said that where will the 100-200 year old Waqf papers come from,

On the plea of ​​SG Tushar Mehta, Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai said that but the petitioners say that the government itself will investigate its claim. Tushar Mehta said, ‘Revenue officials will investigate the land revenue records. He will not decide any final ownership. The affected side has a way to go to court.

SG Mehta said that people had problems with the investigation of the collector, then another officer was decided. He will only amend the revenue record and amend. The CJI asked the SG that there would be an entry on paper only. Tushar Mehta said on the question of CJI Gavai, “Yes, if the government wants ownership, it will also file a civil case.”

The petitioners also had an objection to whether anyone could object to the property and then whether the property belongs to the government, it will also be decided by the government of the government. He said that as soon as the dispute on property starts, she will go to the government i.e. Waqf will not remain and if the board goes to court, then the property will remain the property of the government until the court comes to court.

The issue of identification of government properties was raised on Tuesday (May 20, 2025) on petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. On behalf of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that there is no offering like temples here. On this, Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gawai said that he has gone to the dargah and he has seen that there is also a climb there.

The last hearing on the Waqf law was held on 15 May, when the CJI Gawai bench asked the Center to file an affidavit by May 19. Today, Kapil Sibal, while favoring the petitioners, said that the new Waqf law is a law to grab the property of Waqf. He objected that the government will take a decision in the dispute with the government. Kapil Sibal also argued that there is no offering like temples here, the income of the mosque is managed only by the income received from the Waqf property.

On this argument of Kapil Sibal, CJI Gavai interrupted and said, “I have gone to the dargah, there is a climb there.” Kapil Sibal said on this that G Dargah climbs, but the dargah and mosques are separated. He objected to making the registration of Waqf properties necessary and said that when the 100-200 year old Waqf papers would come from, CJI Gawai asked him if there was no provision for registration in the Waqf Act.

Kapil Sibal told the CJI that there was a provision for registration, but the result was not that the property would not be considered as Waqf. He said that the maximum arrangement was that Mutavalli, who did not register, should be removed. Now the property will not be considered as Waqf. CJI Gawai noted his objection.

Kapil Sibal has also objected to the registration of Waqf by user, he says that it is difficult to give documents in Waqf By users, who will not be able to give the property of the property, the user will not be able to give his documents. On his argument, CJI Gawai said that but after 1954 registration was made mandatory.

Kapil Sibal said that in the Archaeological Memorial Act of 1904 and 1958, there is a provision of protection from the government on the ancient Waqf property. Ownership is not transferred. Religious activities are not affected.

Also read:-
Waqf by user, appointment and property identification … SG Mehta and Sibal’s strong debate erupted as soon as the hearing begins

The Supreme Court has postponed the hearing on the petitions filed on the Waqf Amendment Act on Monday (May 5, 2025). Now the court will listen to the case on 15 May. Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna said that there is a need to hear in detail in this matter. Now the case will be found in front of the next Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai. During this time, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta became an emotional about the retirement of CJI Sanjeev Khanna.

On May 13, Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna is retiring and on 14 May Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai will take oath as the new CJI. On behalf of the Center, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocates like Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

The status quo will remain, SG said
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that the status quo in the case would be maintained till the next hearing. The last hearing was held on 17 April, in which the court had told the government that the Waqf properties already registered or declared through notification, including Waqf by users, will neither be tested nor notified until the next hearing date, as well as no new appointment in the Waqf Board.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan heard the case. CJI Sanjeev Khanna told the Center that he did not go deep into the affidavit, but some points have been raised about the registration of Waqf by user and some controversial figures have also been given, which need to be considered. The Center filed a reply on 25 April.

What did CJI Sanjeev Khanna say on the center’s affidavit?
CJI Sanjeev Khanna said that there are some aspects that you have settled, but it requires clarification. He said, ‘I do not have to keep any decision or order safe in the interim phase. This case will have to be heard before the appropriate time and this matter will not be there before me.

New CJI Gawai will hear on 15 May
CJI Sanjeev Khanna asked both sides that if they all agree, then the matter sends the matter to the bench of Justice Gawai for hearing on Wednesday or any other day, but for this they have to give 2-3 days time. On this, Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the hearing could be held next week and the CJI listed the matter for May 15.

SG Tushar Mehta became emotional on retirement of CJI Sanjeev Khanna
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed to the decision of CJI Sanjeev Khanna, saying that he agrees to send the case to the bench of Justice Gawai, but is sad to remember about the retirement of CJI Sanjeev Khanna. CJI Sanjeev Khanna said to SG Mehta in a funny manner, ‘No, no I am waiting for it.’

Also read:-
Waqf Amendment Act: The interim order will come on the Waqf Amendment Act or not, the Supreme Court will decide today