Waqf Act: Supreme Court questions key provisions of amended Waqf Act; signals possible interim relief

On the first day of the Supreme Court’s hearing on over 100 petitions challenging the amended Waqf Act, the court engaged in an intense and extended discussion, signaling that it is taking the matter seriously. The court notably questioned whether non-Muslims should be given a place in Muslim religious trusts like the Waqf Board, pointing out the reverse scenario: "Would Hindus allow Muslims in a Hindu trust?"Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that non-Muslims are being included in Waqf Boards, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that out of 22 members, at most two would be non-Muslims. The court responded by pointing to what is written in the Act itself, showing concern.Another critical issue raised was the possibility of denotifying unregistered Waqf properties. The court was told that many old Waqf properties, especially those declared as Waqf by use (Waqf by user), do not have registered deeds due to historical reasons. Sibal highlighted that such a provision could lead to the loss of thousands of Waqf properties, citing an estimate that 4 out of 8 lakh might be lost—though unofficial.The court also acknowledged that while there are positive aspects in the law, issues like potential misuse and forced inclusion of non-Muslims require serious consideration. It suggested that until a final decision is taken, there may be an interim order to halt enforcement of the more controversial provisions, particularly the denotification of properties and the inclusion of non-Muslims.The court asked whether the case should be handled by High Courts or be kept within the Supreme Court. It also asked the Centre to respond to the petitions. The next hearing is scheduled for 2 PM today.Meanwhile, opposition leaders like Imran Pratapgarhi accused the central government of imposing the law forcibly on the Muslim community and expressed hope that the Supreme Court would deliver a historic judgment that protects constitutional rights under Articles 25 and 26.