The Supreme Court on Thursday passed an interim order on the contentious Waqf Act, directing the government that there should not be any change in the status quo of Waqf properties until the next hearing into the matter.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Greenville, you're watching News Today at 9pm. I'm Freeti Chaudhary, our big talking points over the course of the next one hour.
00:06Well, the Supreme Court waded in where the VAKF law was concerned. VAKF status quo now till the 5th of May.
00:15With that, we have an exclusive lined up for you. One of the petitioners was a Saudine Ovesi of the AIMIM.
00:20He's going to be joining us live. Also, how will AI impact political campaigns?
00:26Something strange is happening in the state of Maharashtra and we'll tell you exactly what.
00:31All of that coming up over the course of the next one hour. Allow me to take you through the headlines first.
00:39Centre assures Supreme Court there will not be any non-Muslim appointments to VAKF bodies or property denotification till the next hearing.
00:48Supreme Court asks Centre to file response in seven days.
00:56Calcutta High Court reserves an order on extension of Central Forces deployment in violence-hit areas, orders three-member panel inspection.
01:06Governor versus Mamata war escalates over Governor's Murshidabad visit tomorrow.
01:11SCLL's untainted Bengal teachers to continue directs governments to complete recruitment process by year-end.
01:24Supreme Court says students must not suffer.
01:27AIDMK's big statement days after sealing the deal with BJP.
01:38AIDMK says it will not form coalition government with BJP if they win Tamil Nadu Assembly elections in 2026.
01:46Mahagatbandan seat-sharing talks for Bihar stalled.
01:54No consensus on seat pact between RJD and Congress.
02:02Karnataka Chief Minister Siddharamaya chairs special cabinet meet on Karnataka's socio-economic survey after furor or overcast count.
02:10Asks ministers to submit concerns in writing.
02:13Vice President Jandeep Dhankar attacks judiciary over SC working like a super parliament after top court set three-month deadline to decide on bills for the president.
02:36India hits back at Pakistan Army Chief's two-nation theory pitch.
02:39India tells Pakistan to vacate illegally occupied territory.
02:43And BCCI cracks the whip on Team India coaching staff after a humiliating defeat against Australia in the Border Gawaskar Trophy.
02:56Batting coach Abhishek Nair and fielding coach Teeb Dilip sacked.
03:00Big development came in from the top court today.
03:11The Apex court has refused to stay the controversial VAKF Amendment Act 2025,
03:17delivering what many see as an interim setback for the centre.
03:21While the law remains enforced, the court has ordered strict status quo injunction on some of the contentious provisions of the VAKF bill or the VAKF law.
03:33Now, these two come in especially where VAKF properties are concerned, categorised as VAKF by user,
03:38halting any change until further hearing.
03:41More so, also on the inclusion of non-Muslims on the board.
03:45Here's more.
03:48Top court steps in on VAKF law.
03:52Interim setback for government.
03:56Injunction on VAKF's contentious provisions in new law.
04:00The Supreme Court has said that the central VAKF council and the state VAKF court will not be constituted.
04:08VAKF by user cannot be deleted.
04:12Now, there are other provisions also which we as a party have come to the Honorable Supreme Court that calling it unconstitutional.
04:20This is not reform.
04:24It is retaliation in the guise of reform.
04:29It is retaliation meticulously scripted, strategically timed and constitutionally questionable.
04:40The VAKF Amendment Act is not an exercise in efficiency as it pretends to be.
04:47While the Supreme Court refused to grant an interim stay on the VAKF Amendment Act 2025,
04:54the status quo on certain contentious provisions of the new law are being seen as a setback to the government.
05:03Interim setback 1.
05:04The top court directed that there would be no alteration in the character of any VAKF property,
05:12including those registered as declared under the practice of VAKF by user.
05:19VAKF by user is land used by Muslim religious or charitable purpose for a long period of time.
05:26It is deemed to be VAKF property even if it was not registered as one.
05:31Nearly half of the 8 lakh odd VAKF properties in India are VAKF by user.
05:39The Supreme Court noted such properties would not be denotified as VAKF by user for now,
05:46which was proposed by the new VAKF Amendment law.
05:50The court ordered that all VAKF properties, regardless of how they were classified,
05:56must be preserved in their current state until the next hearing.
06:00There were concerns expressed by the top court over the VAKF by user provision in the new law,
06:06which said if the district collector identified any VAKF by user property as government land,
06:12it would cease or be denotified as VAKF property till a court determined its status.
06:21The Supreme Court was of the view that a court should decide that
06:26and that VAKF by user denotification should not happen before that.
06:32Interim setback 2.
06:34The top court told the government that non-Muslims won't be appointed to central VAKF councils and the state VAKF boards.
06:43The Supreme Court made the union government assure that no appointment of non-Muslims to the VAKF council
06:50and board would be made till the next date, which is 5th May.
06:55It also directed that no new appointments be made to any VAKF board during this period.
07:00The centre assured the Supreme Court that no VAKF properties will be denotified
07:06till the next date of hearing on 5th May 2025.
07:11This means that disputed VAKF land cannot be touched.
07:15This means the government cannot take land claimed by VAKF.
07:19It also means that even disputed land cannot be taken by the government.
07:25The petitioners, many of which are opposition parties, are claiming interim victory.
07:30While the government now has 7 days to file a preliminary response with relevant documents.
07:37Bureau Report, India Today.
07:41All right, let's get in Asad Deen Ovesi, AIMIM chief.
07:46He's also a petitioner in his party where the VAKF law is concerned.
07:50Appreciate you taking the time off and joining us, Mr. Ovesi.
07:53My first question.
07:54Now, there has been an injunction at least on some of the most contentious provisions of the law.
08:00Do you see now at least the Supreme Court has seen merit in what petitioners like you have appealed for?
08:05Well, the Honourable Supreme Court has given an interim relief on the lines of not to constitute the central VAKF council and the state VAKF board.
08:18And that all VAKF properties which are registered, notified, are also VAKF by user will not be deleted.
08:26Now, this is subject to the final order that is uploaded or I am yet to see.
08:32But this is what I had understood.
08:34But I would be very cautious in saying this, that our legal battle against this Black and Unconstitutional Act continues.
08:45And we have consistently opposed all these amendments in the Joint Working Committee of the Parliament Committee
08:51and in the Parliament when the Parliament took the deliberation voting on this bill.
08:56So, the legal battle continues.
08:58There are many provisions, many amended sections in this Act which are very dangerous
09:05and which will weaken and destroy the VAKF board.
09:08So, that is why it's an interim relief.
09:11And we have to continue with our legal battle, continue with our public protest
09:17against this Black and Unconstitutional law which violates freedom of religion,
09:23it violates fundamental rights.
09:25And that is why I feel that the legal battle and the public protest will continue.
09:30But Mr. Rovesi, you know, what you call is an interim relief for you
09:34is also being read as a possible interim, interim setback for the government.
09:38But the top court did not stay the law with what you had appealed for.
09:42You wanted the law to be struck down.
09:44The top court has seen merit in some of the provisions of the law.
09:47From here on, do you at least admit now that your legal fight
09:51and other petitioners' legal fight will have to be limited to the provisions of the law now,
09:56not the law itself?
10:00We don't know.
10:01The Supreme Court has given dates now.
10:04We don't know what will happen on those dates.
10:07But we'll have to wait and see.
10:09But the legal battle against this act on behalf of the petitioners,
10:17on behalf of all India Muslim personal law boards will continue.
10:21You know, there are...
10:23Just now, as I have told you, that there are many provisions.
10:26For example, this section which says that you cannot give a property to a WAP
10:31unless or until you're a practicing Muslim for five years.
10:35Now, look at the stupidity of this amendment.
10:39Who will classify or give a judgment that I'm a practicing Muslim?
10:45Especially if one happens to be a woman.
10:48Secondly, the application of Limitation Act from today,
10:53WAP board would be losing numerous number of WAP properties
10:57because the encroachers will become owners now.
11:00And the most unfortunate part is that the section two,
11:05wherein the trust will not be WAP anymore.
11:07So, this directly benefits from today the richest man in India
11:12who had built his palatial house on a Khoja orphanage.
11:18He will become the owner now.
11:20We will be losing the WAP, evacue properties,
11:27especially in Punjab and Haranya,
11:28which was a source of great revenue to those work boards.
11:30They will be under government control, government custodian.
11:33The work board will not be the owner.
11:35The government of India, central government will be making rules
11:39which will be violative of federalism.
11:42The collector can still issue an order to a Mutawalli
11:45telling him to do something un-Islamic or something stupid,
11:50which will again, if he doesn't accept,
11:52he can be sentenced for six months.
11:56There are many provisions in this bill
11:59and then the time is ticking to register all WAP properties on the portal.
12:03If you don't register in six months,
12:05then it will not be WAP.
12:07So, there are many sections in this law,
12:11amended law of WAP,
12:13which are very grievous and harmful
12:15not only to the constitution of our country,
12:18but also to the WAP board itself,
12:20WAP properties itself.
12:21So, there is an understanding right now,
12:23Mr. Ovesi, by the petitioners
12:24that they will have to go provision by provision
12:26because of all the contentious,
12:28the other provisions that you have just recalled.
12:32Two, is in what the top court or the Supreme Court has seen merit in
12:36and has, you know, you can say a stay
12:38or there is an injunction on those two provisions.
12:41But the fight will now from here on legally
12:43will be provision by provision
12:45because the government's clear.
12:46They see merit in the act.
12:48They also say very clearly
12:50that some of the provisions are for the better.
12:53Well, when the final, you know,
12:58arguments will start
12:59from the five petitioners
13:01who are against this law,
13:06you know, then everything would be
13:08argued in detail
13:10in front of the Honorable Supreme Court
13:12when the Supreme Court decides to hear
13:15and lays down a timetable or whatever it is.
13:19But as far as the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board
13:23is concerned
13:23and the Muslim community at large is concerned,
13:27they have rejected this law.
13:29We have called it an attack on our religion.
13:33We have called it an attack on the Constitution.
13:36It's a direct attack on the fundamental rights,
13:39Article 14, 15, 25 and 26.
13:43And we feel that this is not,
13:45we have the strong opinion
13:46that this law is not brought in
13:49to save work properties
13:50or to increase their revenue
13:52or to get rid of encroaches.
13:54But it is brought in to do the opposite,
13:57to weaken all the work properties.
14:00Mr. Oweisi, you know,
14:01you've debated on it in Parliament as well.
14:03And this one point was very contentious
14:05in Parliament where the Centre raised it up.
14:08The Centre also raised this in court
14:11where, you know,
14:12they say the lack of representations,
14:15especially about entire villages
14:16being claimed as work property
14:18to justify these amendments.
14:20That is what the Centre claims.
14:21What is your response now
14:22to the concerns of what is deemed
14:23by many as widespread
14:25and the question over the legitimacy
14:27of the work floor?
14:30Now, look at the hypocrisy of the government.
14:33You say in one breath
14:35that we want to save work properties,
14:38we want to increase the revenue.
14:39And what you are doing right now,
14:42right now you are rewarding the encroaches.
14:45By applying the Limitation Act,
14:48you are rewarding the encroaches
14:50by making them the owners of the work property.
14:54Secondly, about this wrong example
14:58of villages being classified as work.
15:00I happened to be a member
15:02of the Joint Working Committee
15:04and wherein in media
15:06it was widely discussed about
15:07some village in Tamil Nadu.
15:09But when the Tamil Nadu government representative
15:11came to this Joint Working Committee
15:13and explained to all the members
15:16of the committee
15:16and everyone was happy and shocked
15:20to hear that how it was portrayed
15:22by BJP in the media,
15:24it is no more an issue.
15:25That issue has been solved
15:26by the Tamil Nadu government.
15:29Now, as far as the Kerala example is concerned,
15:33I want the BJP to tell those people
15:36who are now very upset
15:38that what is the history of that property?
15:41Is that property of a property or not?
15:45And how will this law help them?
15:46Please tell them, explain to them.
15:49You are unnecessary trying to create
15:52conflicts between religions.
15:54That is your whole intention.
15:56And that is why the truth has come out
16:00and people will see that BJP is playing
16:03with their minds
16:05and unnecessarily trying to create
16:06conflicts everywhere.
16:09Mr. Obesi, appreciate you taking the time out
16:11and speaking with us.
16:12Thank you there.
16:13You're a petitioner in this case.
16:14You say it's interim relief,
16:15but you are also right.
16:17It is interim,
16:18only till the 5th of May
16:19when the next hearing comes in,
16:21where two contentious provisions
16:23of the work of law have,
16:25there's an injunction on that.
16:27You could say they've been stayed
16:28or their status quo till now.
16:30So, you know, a relative win
16:32for the petitioners,
16:34but it's only interim.
16:36With that, I want to quickly bring in as well,
16:38Anas Tanvir, advocate on record,
16:41Supreme Court.
16:42He's also fighting the case
16:43for one of the MPs
16:45who have also filed a plea
16:47with the Supreme Court
16:49to strike down
16:50what is being alleged by the MP
16:53as unconstitutional,
16:56the work floor.
16:57Mr. Tanvir,
16:58now, what do you make
16:59of what the Supreme Court said today?
17:01Because there is no stay
17:03on the work floor,
17:04which is what the petitioners wanted,
17:06but the contentious provisions,
17:09clearly,
17:09there's an injunction on those.
17:11Two of them at least.
17:12See, the two most important provisions
17:17that had a nationwide
17:19and a widespread implication
17:21have been effectively stayed.
17:23So, as of today
17:25and until the next date of hearing,
17:27there cannot be any appointment
17:30in the work board or the council
17:32and also the work by user
17:35registered and declared work.
17:38The nature of the same
17:39cannot be changed.
17:40So, these two had
17:42a widespread ramification
17:43and they have been effectively
17:45stayed by this Honorable Court.
17:49Mr. Tanvir,
17:50would you elaborate
17:51on the importance
17:52of these two provisions?
17:54Because, you know,
17:54that could be the core
17:56also of, you know,
17:57what many of the petitioners want.
18:00Would you elaborate on them
18:01and how they tend
18:02to benefit the petitioners?
18:03See, if the government
18:10had the power
18:10that they have taken
18:11with this legislation
18:13to change the nature of work
18:15to abolish the work
18:16by user completely,
18:17that has been stopped
18:19because most of the work,
18:21if not all,
18:22rather a lot,
18:23a lot many of the work
18:24that we have today
18:25were established
18:27long, long ago.
18:28there cannot be
18:30any registration
18:30because the one
18:32who gave this endowment
18:33are no more,
18:34their generations have gone.
18:36But it has been used
18:38as a work property.
18:40This provision,
18:41I mean,
18:42the 3B provision,
18:43wanted a registration
18:44and a complete declaration
18:47saying that
18:48who instituted this work,
18:50on which date,
18:51and so on and so forth.
18:53And obviously,
18:54the person,
18:55Lamottawalli,
18:55has to give a certain date.
18:57If he fails to give
18:58that certain date,
18:59he will be sent to prison.
19:01Now,
19:02with the stay
19:02on this provision,
19:04it is very important
19:05to understand
19:05that there cannot be
19:09a change
19:10of the nature
19:13of the work.
19:14The power of the collector
19:15also,
19:16a lot of the power
19:16flows from this provision only.
19:18That has also been
19:19effectively stayed.
19:20And importantly,
19:24the part where
19:25the whole
19:26work council
19:27composition
19:28was being changed,
19:29the composition
19:29of work court
19:30was being changed,
19:31non-Muslims were allowed in.
19:33Matter of fact,
19:34if we count
19:34the numbers
19:35in the work council,
19:37the numbers
19:37of Muslims
19:38might be less
19:40than that of
19:41non-Muslims
19:42in a work council.
19:43So,
19:43all those provisions
19:44have been stayed
19:45for now.
19:46So,
19:47it is a small
19:48but important
19:49victory for us,
19:50for time being.
19:51Well,
19:52interim victory,
19:53small though,
19:54but the defence
19:55that I asked Mr.
19:56Ovesi as well,
19:57which was also
19:58made in court,
19:59is how
19:59entire villages
20:01are being taken
20:02in and claimed
20:03as work properties.
20:07Yes,
20:07millions
20:08of
20:08response
20:10have been
20:11sent by Muslims
20:12opposing the work.
20:14I mean,
20:14one.
20:15Second,
20:16if they say
20:17that there has been
20:18deliberation in the JPC,
20:19but all the
20:20amendments proposed,
20:21all the dissent notes
20:22by the opposition
20:23members in the JPC
20:24were discarded
20:25while all of them
20:27by the BJP members
20:30and their allies
20:30were allowed.
20:32So,
20:32let them put this
20:33on record,
20:34let them bring
20:35their affidavit,
20:36we will file
20:36our reply to that,
20:38but merely saying
20:39that there has been
20:40a widespread consultation.
20:41What was the nature
20:42of the consultation?
20:43What was the record?
20:44I know for sure
20:46that millions
20:46of Muslims
20:47have sent emails
20:48opposing the
20:49work for amendment.
20:50Now,
20:50will they bring
20:51that on record?
20:51Will they bring
20:52that number
20:52also on record?
20:53Because we might
20:54try to find out
20:55how many have sent.
20:57So,
20:57we will have to see,
20:58I mean,
20:58we will have to wait
20:59for the affidavit
21:00to come.
21:01Once the affidavit
21:01is before us,
21:02I will be in a better
21:03position to respond to this.
21:04Okay,
21:04you are talking about
21:05the affidavit
21:06which the government
21:07has to file
21:07in seven days' time
21:08with proper paperwork.
21:10Away from all of that,
21:12do you now,
21:14at least there is
21:14a realization
21:15that the law
21:16will stay
21:17but you will have
21:18to take the fight
21:18provision by provision?
21:22See,
21:23let me just,
21:24for the record,
21:25the court has said
21:27that the matter
21:27will be listed
21:28in the week
21:29commencing 5th of May.
21:31Okay,
21:31not 5th of May.
21:32So,
21:33a lot of people
21:34have been saying
21:34that the next date
21:35is 5th of May.
21:36That is not the case,
21:37first.
21:37Second,
21:38yes,
21:38we are quite happy.
21:39I mean,
21:40we will be pushing
21:40for more stay.
21:41We have already
21:44argued that
21:45there are other
21:46provisions also
21:46that have to be stayed.
21:48We will be pushing
21:49for that
21:49and we are hopeful
21:50of the outcome
21:51on the next date
21:52of hearing as well.
21:54All right.
21:55Mr. Tanvir,
21:55now your particular
21:57petition highlights
21:58issues like
21:58the precondition
22:00of 5 years
22:00of practicing Islam
22:01for creating
22:02Waqf and restrictions
22:03on Waqf.
22:04How will you argue
22:05that these provisions
22:06are arbitrary
22:07and violate Islamic law
22:08and customs
22:08because you will go
22:09into provision
22:10by provision?
22:11They do not just
22:15violate Islamic law.
22:17Please understand,
22:18they say,
22:18practicing Islam.
22:19How do you establish
22:20if someone is a
22:21practicing Muslim
22:22or not?
22:23And why should I
22:24establish this
22:25to any government
22:26agency
22:27or to any
22:28representative
22:29of the government?
22:30It is between
22:31me and my God
22:32and the state
22:34has nothing
22:35to do with it.
22:35So this provision
22:36is constitutionally
22:38arbitrary.
22:39It creates a
22:39different class.
22:40I have also
22:40filed another petition
22:41representing the MP
22:43from the Lakshwadip.
22:44He belongs to
22:45Schedule 5 area
22:46and there is a
22:47complete ban.
22:48The amendment
22:48puts a complete ban
22:49on creation of Waqf
22:50in the Schedule
22:51tribe area
22:51and Schedule 5 area
22:53or Schedule 6 area.
22:55Now he is saying
22:56that how can you
22:57ask me to choose
22:58between my religion,
23:00my religious identity
23:01and my tribal
23:02identity.
23:03They both are
23:04protected by the
23:05constitution.
23:05They both are
23:06sacrosanct to me
23:07and that is the
23:08crux of the case.
23:09The state cannot
23:10force me to prove
23:11that I am a
23:12practicing Muslim.
23:13Okay.
23:14You know,
23:14one final question
23:15that I will ask you
23:16Mr. Tanbir.
23:16Your petition
23:17has focused,
23:18your petition in
23:19particular on the
23:20fact that Waqf Act
23:21somewhere down the
23:22line violates
23:23article 14,
23:25the principle of
23:25equality.
23:27Now with what the
23:28court said yesterday
23:28and today,
23:29if we call it an
23:30interim order,
23:31do you think
23:31it is encouraging
23:32for you going
23:33forward?
23:37Yes,
23:37it is quite
23:38encouraging
23:38and the court's
23:40view has not
23:41been against us.
23:43It has quite been
23:44in our favor
23:45but as I said,
23:46these are deliberations.
23:48Whatever happens
23:49in the court
23:49unless it is
23:50recorded in the
23:51order,
23:53it remains a
23:54deliberation.
23:54A lot of time
23:55judges say things
23:56to plot the
23:58response,
23:59to get a response
24:00from the councils
24:01so it will be
24:02wrong to say
24:03that the court
24:03has framed a
24:04positive opinion
24:04or a negative
24:05opinion.
24:06The matter is
24:06still subjudice.
24:07We are still on
24:08the stage where
24:09an interim stay
24:10will be further
24:11requested.
24:12So I don't think
24:13the court has
24:13framed,
24:14it is positive
24:15for us as of
24:16now but the
24:17hearing is not
24:18over.
24:19It is still
24:19subjudice.
24:20True and you're
24:21approaching it with
24:22caution is what you
24:23said.
24:23Appreciate you
24:23joining us.
24:24I am also joined
24:24right now by
24:25Vikas Singh,
24:25Senior Advocate
24:26Supreme Court
24:27and former
24:27Additional Solicitor
24:28General of India.
24:29So my first
24:30question, you
24:31know, stems from
24:32the fact that the
24:33top court could
24:34have continued to
24:35hear the case or
24:36transfer it to a
24:37high court but
24:38didn't do so.
24:39They did pass an
24:40injunction.
24:41The fact that they
24:42have found a merit
24:44to stay status quo
24:47or pass an
24:48injunction on two
24:49very controversial
24:50provisions of the
24:51law.
24:52Do you think that
24:53somewhere down the
24:54line the court has
24:54clearly seen merit in
24:55the petitioner's case
24:56against the
24:57work floor?
25:00So there are
25:02definitely issues
25:03being raised by the
25:04petitioners, you
25:05know, which the
25:06Supreme Court feels
25:07need consideration.
25:09As of now, they
25:09have not passed any
25:10interim order.
25:11They have kept the
25:12matter for the
25:12reply of the Union
25:13of India and it
25:15is only the Union
25:16of India is not
25:16able to give a
25:18satisfactory answer
25:19to the clauses
25:21referred to by the
25:23petitioners that a
25:24question of passing
25:26an interim order
25:26will arise.
25:28So far, they have
25:29actually heard only
25:30the petitioners and
25:31they have not seen
25:32the entire act and
25:33they have not seen
25:34the scheme of the
25:35act.
25:36Probably once they
25:37see the whole
25:38scheme, then a
25:39stay, really, the
25:42question of stay
25:42may not arise.
25:44But the sheer fact,
25:46you know, Mr.
25:46Singh, that the
25:47court today saw
25:49merit in at least
25:50passing an
25:51injunction on two
25:52of the most, you
25:54know, contentious,
25:55controversial
25:55provisions, be it
25:57by user or
25:58non-Muslims on
25:59boards.
26:00And, you know,
26:01they have made
26:01that clear that the
26:02government can't act
26:03on it and their
26:04status quo.
26:05If that continues,
26:06at least right now
26:07it is only interim
26:07until the next
26:08hearing which is on
26:09the 5th of May.
26:10But if that
26:11continues, somewhere
26:12down the line do
26:13you think the law
26:13will be defanged?
26:14So, according to
26:18me, there are
26:18basically two or
26:19three contentious
26:21clauses which the
26:21Supreme Court is
26:22actually examining.
26:24One is the
26:25participation of
26:26non-Muslims in the
26:29Waqh board.
26:30Now that, the
26:32government has
26:35taken a stand that
26:36there will be only
26:36two non-Muslims
26:37apart from the
26:38ex-officio members.
26:40Although there is
26:41no clarity in the
26:42act, it would have
26:44been better if it
26:45had been spelt out
26:46in the act itself
26:48that there will be
26:50maximum of two
26:51non-Muslim members
26:52in the board.
26:54But this can be
26:55read down by the
26:56Supreme Court by
26:57saying that two
26:58non-Muslims will be
26:59the maximum two
27:00non-Muslims and it
27:01will not exceed two
27:03people not
27:05subscribing to the
27:07Islam.
27:09The other
27:09contentious clauses
27:10with regard to
27:11the survey by the
27:12officer, senior
27:14in rank to the
27:14collector when the
27:15government claims it
27:16to be government
27:17land, work plan to
27:17be government land.
27:19The objectionable
27:22clause which the
27:22Supreme Court is
27:23finding so far is
27:24that while the
27:25survey is going on,
27:27the rights of the
27:28Waqh will be
27:29suspended.
27:30It will be not
27:31deemed to be work
27:31during the period of
27:32survey, which
27:34sounds a little
27:35odd because whatever
27:39decision should happen,
27:40should happen after the
27:41survey is over, not at
27:43the time when the
27:43survey has started.
27:45So that is the other
27:46clause which they are
27:47considering of, you
27:49know, tinkering with.
27:53And lastly, the Waqh by
27:55user is something which
27:57they are worried that why
27:58this is being done away
28:00with.
28:00And in my view, that is
28:02not really a problematic
28:04clause because Waqh by
28:05user, past Waqh by user,
28:07is being acknowledged in
28:08this act.
28:09And those Waqh will
28:10remain.
28:11It's only the new Waqh
28:13which will be created
28:14post this act has been
28:17coming into force.
28:18Will not be by Waqh by user,
28:20they will be only by a
28:21deed, which according to me
28:23is to the benefit of the
28:25person who is creating
28:26the Waqh.
28:26Because by keeping a Waqh by
28:28user and without spelling
28:30out the terms of the Waqh,
28:31you are actually creating
28:33uncertainty for the future.
28:37So it's better to have it
28:38on a deed and get that deed
28:40registered with the board.
28:42Because really speaking,
28:45even though the Muslim law
28:47may permit Waqh by user,
28:50the Article 26 permits the
28:54state to make a law for the
28:56administration of these
28:57properties and while
29:00administering the property,
29:02if the state feels that
29:03having a document with
29:06regard to fresh Waqh,
29:07not the earlier ones,
29:09earlier ones will not have
29:10to be registered.
29:12Maybe they will continue to
29:14remain if they have already
29:15been registered under the
29:16earlier act.
29:18But Mr. Singh, the fact,
29:20you know, on what you
29:21touched on where you said
29:22will not have an issue in
29:23your view, which is the
29:24Waqh by user provision,
29:26but on that argument,
29:28Abhishek Manu Singhvi in
29:30court has argued that,
29:32you know, what, 4 lakh
29:33of the 8 lakh existing
29:35Waqh property,
29:36lakh hectares, are perhaps
29:38by Waqh users only and
29:41that the newly induced
29:42provisions makes them
29:43non-existent by just one
29:44stroke of a pen.
29:47No, that's not correct.
29:48So that's a wrong
29:49interpretation.
29:50It's a wrong argument.
29:51That's why the reading of
29:53the act will have to be
29:54seen.
29:54It only says that heads
29:56forth Waqh by user will
29:58not be done.
29:59And all Waqhs prior to
30:01this act, even by user,
30:04will be allowed to
30:05continue and there will be
30:07no impediment in those
30:08Waqhs and their status
30:10will not in any manner be,
30:12you know, diluted or
30:14there will not take over
30:15of these Waqhs.
30:15So there is no question.
30:17It's a complete misreading
30:18of the act.
30:19Only thing which they are
30:21ultimately wanting to argue
30:23is that Waqh by user
30:25henceforth also should be
30:26permitted.
30:27And they say as per Islam,
30:29this is something which is
30:30permissible.
30:31But I agree that it is
30:33permissible as per Islam.
30:34But the state when it has
30:36the right to make a law, it
30:38can always make a law for
30:39registration or for a document
30:41to be created of a Waqhs by
30:43user.
30:43Like, for instance, in a
30:44family settlement, there
30:46could be an oral family
30:47settlement, but it has to be
30:49ultimately recorded in the
30:50form of a Yardasht.
30:51And they're only among
30:52Hindus that family settlement
30:54becomes enforceable by law.
30:55So I don't see any, you
30:57know, impediment or any
30:59real big legal lacunae in
31:03asking a Waqh by user to
31:05record the record in a
31:08document the terms of the
31:10user and the, you know,
31:12and how the Waqh will
31:13operate in the days to
31:15come.
31:15So I personally feel that
31:17is not something which is
31:18an objectionable clause.
31:19It is only being, you know,
31:21sort of blown out of
31:22proportion by the
31:24petitioner side.
31:25Right.
31:26Mr. Singh, also the
31:27center has now seven days
31:28to file its own reply.
31:29And because, you know, it
31:31is a politically
31:32surcharged case, we've seen
31:33that many of the
31:34petitioners are political
31:35parties.
31:36A lot of people and these
31:38political parties are
31:39calling it a setback for
31:41the center.
31:41How would you react to
31:43that?
31:45No.
31:46So asking to file a
31:47reply can never be
31:48considered a setback.
31:49I mean, these are the
31:51earlier work facts were
31:52also challenged and they
31:53were pending in the high
31:54court.
31:54Now Supreme Court wants to
31:56examine the whole thing
31:56here and probably will
31:58transfer the ones which
31:59are pending in the high
32:00court also.
32:01And while examining a
32:03statute, everybody, the
32:04other side definitely has a
32:06right to file its reply.
32:07And asking for a short
32:09reply before passing an
32:11interim order is something
32:12which is quite usual.
32:13It can't be said to be a
32:14setback under any
32:15circumstances.
32:16Because filing a right to
32:18file a reply, there is a
32:20right with the court to pass
32:21an ex-party order.
32:22They could have passed an
32:23ex-party interim order
32:24also.
32:24So they have probably felt
32:27that taking a reply will be
32:28better for them to take up
32:30to understand what exactly
32:31are the provisions, you
32:34know, of the act and how
32:36they are to be interpreted.
32:37For instance, in the reply,
32:39supposing if the central
32:40comment were to say on
32:41affidavit that the board
32:43will not have more than two
32:44people as non-Muslims.
32:47Now if that is recorded on
32:48the affidavit, the section
32:50can be read down on the
32:51basis of the affidavit.
32:52And that apprehension of
32:55the petitioners will
32:56automatically be satisfied.
32:58So I don't see this to be a
33:00setback at all for asking
33:02them to file a reply.
33:04Mr. Singh, do you think it's
33:06going to be now a very long,
33:07protracted, prolonged case
33:09and battle because the court
33:10has said it will be hearing
33:12only five main petitions.
33:13But given that almost all
33:15clauses, all provisions are
33:17being challenged by the
33:18petitioners, do you think a
33:19final decision is a long way
33:21away?
33:24No, so obviously on the
33:26next date, final decision
33:27is not going to happen.
33:28So there will be a fix up
33:29a date for hearing.
33:30It may take six months, it
33:31may take one year.
33:33That will depend on the
33:34priority which the Supreme
33:35Court attaches after the
33:37interim order, whatever if
33:38it is they are proposing
33:39to pass.
33:41But if they feel that if
33:42they pass some kind of an
33:43interim order which protects
33:44both the sides, then there
33:46may not really be any
33:47urgency to hear the matter.
33:49So a lot will depend on what
33:50happens on the next date of
33:51hearing.
33:52If no interim order is
33:53granted, then I am sure
33:55they will post the matter
33:56for hearing very soon and
33:58decide the matter also
33:59expeditiously.
34:01But if they pass some kind
34:02of a working arrangement,
34:03pass an order which can be
34:04said to be some kind of a
34:05working arrangement, then
34:06there may not be any
34:07necessity to hear the matter
34:09urgently.
34:10And they may hear it on its
34:12turn, which may take time.
34:14So a lot will depend on what
34:15happens on the next date.
34:16Right.
34:17Just one final question,
34:18Mr. Singh.
34:18There is a lot of outrage or
34:20shall I say concern being
34:22expressed by people who
34:23support the bill.
34:24They claim that this was a
34:25bill that was passed after a
34:27lot of consultation, after a
34:29lot of discussion, debate,
34:31stakeholders were involved.
34:32The supporters of the bill
34:33are asking if it would be
34:35right for the court to grant
34:36any interim stay at all.
34:37This is what a lot of people
34:38are asking who support the
34:40bill.
34:40So, the court has not granted
34:43any stay so far.
34:45The court is merely hearing
34:46the parties at the moment.
34:48So, why are you, you know,
34:50judging what the court is
34:52going to do on the next date
34:53of hearing?
34:54For all you know, if the
34:55central government is able to
34:57satisfy the court about the
34:59misgivings that have been
35:00created by the petitioners,
35:02there would be no questions
35:03of any stay in this matter.
35:04So, I don't see why should we
35:06perceive this hearing as if the
35:09court has already taken a
35:10call to pass an interim
35:12order.
35:12So, I don't think there is
35:13any such apprehension.
35:14Okay.
35:15Well, thank you.
35:16Thank you for taking out the
35:16time and joining us this
35:17evening, Mr. Vikas Singh.
35:19We're going to let it be at
35:20that, viewers, because right
35:21now it's just status quo.
35:22There's no real development
35:24at that.
35:24You can call it interim relief,
35:26interim setback, but just
35:27focus on the word interim.
35:29The next hearing on the 5th of
35:30May.
35:31One thing there is clarity on.
35:33Yesterday, the top court of
35:34the country has said that we
35:35could hand over the case to
35:37the high court.
35:38They're not going to do that
35:39because they've already
35:39started, you know, passing
35:41observations or they are
35:42hearing the case.
35:43It's going to be heard by the
35:44Supreme Court itself.
35:45That is at least something
35:46that we know right now.
35:48Okay.
35:48With that, I want to quickly
35:49shift focus to this intriguing
35:52story that is developing all
35:54across the world, especially in
35:56India, where the use of AI in
35:57politics is concerned.
35:59In a political first in India,
36:01the Sena Uddhav Thakere
36:03faction has brought back the voice
36:05of Balasaheb Thakere through
36:07artificial intelligence, AI.
36:09At a rally in Nashik, an AI
36:11generated speech in his signature
36:13style took direct aim at
36:15Ekarnath Shindeyam, the BJP's
36:16sparking sharp reactions from the
36:18ruling Mahayuti.
36:19A speech by Balasaheb Thakere rendered
36:41by artificial intelligence for the
36:43current time.
36:47That was the highlight at the
36:49Shiv Sena's UBT's public meet in
36:52Nashik on Wednesday.
36:55The nearly 13-minute speech with a
36:58booming voice resembling that of
37:00Shiv Sena founder.
37:01The AI-generated speech targeted
37:18Deputy Chief Minister Ekarnath Shindeyam.
37:20Narendra Modi
37:45It did not spare the BJP either.
37:51મારાયે મંજે ધોંગ આય ધોંગ ભારત્ય જનતા પક્શાલા મારાસ્ટાત કાય અરે દેશાત કોણી ઉળખત નોતે ત
38:21The AI speech of Balasab Thakre comes at a time when Uddhav Thakre's rivals are using the Sena founders' old soundbites targeting Maharashtra Vikasagadi ally Congress to mock the former Chief Minister.
38:38The ruling coalition Mahayuti however is not amused by the use of AI by the Sena UBT.
38:51The Sena UBT defense,
39:21This is the first time the SENA founder's AI speech was used
39:51by his son's party to target his opponents.
39:54The party could use this strategy in future rallies
39:57as Uddhav Thakre faces the most challenging phase of his political career so far.
40:03The Shiv Sena UBT is gearing up for the high-stakes BMC elections
40:08which might be held this year.
40:10With Praveen Thakre, EuroReport, India Today.
40:15Well, it's practically, technically resurrecting the dead,
40:19at least in audio, and politically it can be explosive.
40:24I have with me our own AI expert, Cyrus John, editor of Emerging Tech, is with us.
40:28We also have Nalani Sharma because it's a grey area where it comes down legally
40:33what action can be taken, if at all, where the use or the misuse of AI is concerned.
40:38But I want to bring in Cyrus.
40:39Cyrus, because AI is developing so quickly,
40:44how is this even possible right now?
40:47So, Preeti, if this was happening in 2020,
40:49I would have been surprised.
40:51But it's happening in 2025.
40:54AI has grown so much.
40:56And the kind of tools that are available online,
40:58it's not very difficult for anyone to create an audio rendition.
41:02So what you have to do, you basically have to have reference audio of anyone.
41:07It could be you, it could be me.
41:09Reference audio, just put it into an AI software.
41:12Tell the AI, okay, this is the audio clip.
41:15Process this and then create something that I'm typing.
41:18It's that easy.
41:19So the thing is, there are free tools now.
41:22Free tools that can make something like this happen.
41:25And it's just not audio.
41:27You can actually make video.
41:28So Chinese models right now are creating something just out of one image.
41:34Can you imagine?
41:35Just one image and you can create 20-second videos from that.
41:40So you're actually telling me what we see,
41:42because in this particular rally, this was just an audio.
41:45You know, you could hear him in audio.
41:47But we have the kind of technology where we can create a video as well
41:51of Bala Sahib standing there and addressing the crowds.
41:53Absolutely, absolutely.
41:54All you would need right now with the kind of AI advancements we have,
41:57all you would need is just feeding a couple of images or maybe video.
42:01Because, see, how this can happen, anyone, a famous personality politician,
42:06has such a massive digital footprint right now.
42:09And if an AI engine, if you feed all of this data into that AI engine
42:14and just tell, okay, I want this person, this AI render,
42:18to just speak this for me.
42:20Not audio, just video.
42:22Anything can be made possible.
42:24And it's been happening for a long time.
42:27I don't know why people are surprised because something like this has happened.
42:30And because we have seen politician memes also being created like this.
42:34And especially in the US, we've seen a lot of these memes come out.
42:38So the fact that it's happening in India, it started, I think people...
42:41But do we have our own technology, our own tools to do it?
42:44Or are we borrowing tools?
42:45So right now we are borrowing tools.
42:47A lot of the Chinese tools, a lot of the American tools are being deployed for this.
42:51But because of the internet, this democratized version of the internet
42:55where anything, any tool can be downloaded for free.
42:58So people are just using it.
42:59It's very easy to download and use something like this.
43:01But, you know, to do something more refined, does it take a lot more money?
43:04Or do you think, like, to get a flesh and...
43:07Like, of course, not flesh and blood, but a video image of...
43:10You won't believe it.
43:11I just need to invest 1,000 rupees.
43:13Less than 1,000 rupees.
43:14And I can have anyone's image.
43:18Politician, celebrity.
43:19Like a hologram.
43:20They can be in 2D.
43:22So right now we are not at the level of creating hologram.
43:242D images you can present on a video.
43:27And then make them say anything that we want.
43:30So right now the technology is restricted to only video.
43:34But again, it's so advanced that you need just a couple of images.
43:38Because AI works on prediction.
43:40If I have the front of the face right now,
43:42it can predict what my right and my left would look like
43:45without me even turning.
43:46So that's how advanced it is.
43:48And for voices, you need just a 15-second clip.
43:51Enter that into the AI tool and say,
43:53okay, I want this voice to be modulated.
43:57And I can type any sentence I want and this AI will run it.
44:01So it's the level of technology.
44:02My mind's racing because there are elections coming up.
44:05So I'm thinking Karuna Nidhi.
44:06I'm thinking Jai Lalita.
44:08You know, it's all there.
44:09Rajiv Gandhi, Atal Bihari Rajpayee.
44:11There's a lot going on there.
44:13But, Nalini, I want to bring you in there
44:15because there's such a grey area where India is concerned.
44:17But first, you know, Nalini, I'll bring in Cyrus in this conversation.
44:20Cyrus, do we have any laws that govern this at all?
44:24Right now, there are no laws as such.
44:26None as such.
44:28Across the world?
44:28Across the world, we can say China has been very strong
44:32in terms of releasing laws against something like this
44:35because their political spectrum, a lot of it is confined.
44:38They wouldn't want any kind of propaganda being spread on social media of any kind.
44:43So they've put strict laws that anyone seen propagating AI videos specifically of politicians
44:49or anyone will be prosecuted, will be jailed.
44:52So a lot of the countries are trying to adopt something like this.
44:55Nothing concrete in India right now.
44:58But seeing something like this is happening, I think things need to be put in motion.
45:03There was already, because I remember during the Lok Sabha election,
45:06Nalini, I'm going to bring you in all this as well.
45:08I remember the BJP had launched a complaint that the opposition
45:11had tried to doctor the voice of Amitra in a rally through AI.
45:16And, you know, that's a case that went on.
45:18But away from that, Nalini,
45:20the legal space where use or the misuse of AI is concerned
45:24is very, very grey in India and very, very nascent.
45:27Something we really need to start developing to get safeguards in place.
45:30Preeti, there are layers of complexities when we talk about the use of AI in this manner.
45:39Number one, if we talk about personality rights in general,
45:42not just through use of AI, but personality rights in general,
45:46there is no law in India that actually protects anybody's personality rights.
45:50It's through different other laws like the Trademark Act, the Copyright Act.
45:54Under the Indian constitution, you have the right to privacy.
45:57So, it is by virtue of other laws that people seek to protect their personality rights.
46:02Number two, like Cyrus correctly pointed out,
46:05we also don't have any legislation that regulates AI.
46:08So, that's another layer of complexity.
46:10The third layer of complexity in this case is that this voice has been used posthumously.
46:15So, there is no living person who actually has the right over the use of that particular voice
46:22or a person's image or anything that defines it.
46:25You know, I'm going to come in because I'll tell you what,
46:27there's a lot of question being raised here because his voice was being used,
46:31of course, in a rally but used by his son because it's Uddhav Thakre.
46:35So, because he was the father, is there a bloodline to it?
46:37Maybe if Eknar Chindey uses it, he cannot because you're not related?
46:44Preeti, that's a very interesting question because that's exactly what I was getting to.
46:47Although we don't have all these legislations, what we do have are court judgments.
46:52So, we've seen a slew of personalities from Amitabh Bachchan to Dilair Mehendi to Anil Kapoor
46:57to Jackie Shroff, Aradhyab Bachchan recently,
47:00who've all approached courts seeking to protect their personality rights.
47:04Now, the landmark judgment about the point that you are talking about,
47:07can legal heirs use the voice or image or any likelihood,
47:12any distinctive trait of the personality of somebody after they've passed away?
47:16Interestingly, it's in the case of Sushant Singh Rajput's father.
47:20There is a judgment of the Delhi High Court.
47:22So, there was a movie that was going to be made on Sushant Singh Rajput's life
47:26after he'd passed away.
47:27His father had approached the court saying that his personality rights
47:30are going to be protected by him because he, as Sushant Singh Rajput's legal heir,
47:35has inherited his rights after he's passed away.
47:38But in that case, the Delhi High Court, I beg your pardon,
47:41had categorically ruled that personality rights are not transferable,
47:46which means that after a person has passed away,
47:49their personality rights cease to exist.
47:52They cannot be transferred to any legal heir,
47:54which means that not only is Uddhav Thakre authorized to use this,
47:58but anybody else also might be authorized to use this in light of this judgment.
48:01You know, it's very interesting, Nalini,
48:03because what if somebody tomorrow puts it in his will
48:05that not this child, but this child can use my personality rights?
48:09And then, you know, it's a different ballgame altogether.
48:13But thank you, Nalini and John.
48:16I appreciate it for you both taking the time out
48:18and, you know, talking to us about AI
48:21and how quickly it's developing
48:22and with what just happened in that rally in Nashik.
48:26Amazing.
48:27And you're going to see a lot of that coming in viewers,
48:29lots of elections coming in
48:30where political use of AI is concerned.
48:32I still remember the first time it was used,
48:34not posthumously,
48:35but was in the elections of Gujarat in 2012,
48:39where there was a hologram of
48:41then the chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi,
48:45which completely, you know, took everybody by surprise.
48:48And there used to be people who used to go more
48:50to see the hologram rally
48:51than Narendra Modi's rally.
48:53So very, very interesting times.
48:55How quickly it's developed.
48:56In a shocking turn of events,
48:58a man was found dead in Merat, Uttar Pradesh
49:00with a snake discovered right under his body.
49:03Initial reports suggest he had died from snake bites,
49:07but new developments have now revealed
49:09chilling conspiracy.
49:10The real killer was none other than his own wife, Ramita.
49:14What was believed to be a snake attack
49:15was actually a carefully orchestrated plot
49:18to murder her own husband, Amit.
49:21A couple of days ago,
49:25Amit was found dead in Merat, Uttar Pradesh,
49:29and a snake was recovered from under his body.
49:33It was reported that Amit died of snake bites.
49:36But now there is a twist in the tale.
49:40The local police have now unearthed the real conspiracy.
49:44Amit did not die of snake venom,
49:48but he was killed by his wife, Ravita.
49:51It was she who hatched the poisonous plot.
49:55Ravita was allegedly having an extramarital affair
49:59and plotted to kill her husband.
50:01She strangled Amit and placed a snake under his body
50:05so his death appears to be from a snake bite.
50:29It was the autopsy that revealed the true extent of horror.
50:35Amit was rushed to the hospital
50:36on suspicion of being poisoned by the snake.
50:39The hospital declared him broad dead.
50:42Post-mortem was then ordered,
50:44which revealed that Amit died of strangulation,
50:48not snake bite.
50:48Both the accused, Amit's wife, Ravita,
50:52and her friend, Amardeep,
50:54have now been arrested.
50:55This is the second sensational murder
51:20that has stunned Merat.
51:22First, it was Muskaan,
51:23who chopped up her husband's body
51:25and stuffed it in a blue drum.
51:30Now, Ravita and a snake bite conspiracy.
51:34Bureau Report, India Today.
51:39All right, time now for our fact-check segment.
51:41A viral video has been doing the rounds
51:43of Karni Sena workers' fierce protest in Agra.
51:46Furious over a parliament statement
51:47by Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman.
51:51Take a look at what India Today's fact-check team
51:53found out.
51:55You are watching fact-check segment
51:56where we bust fake news.
51:58On 12 April,
51:59Karni Sena workers held fierce protests in Agra,
52:01furious over a parliament statement
52:03by Samajwadi Party MP Ramji Lal Suman,
52:06who allegedly called Rana Sangha a traitor.
52:08The remark has sparked widespread outrage
52:10across the Rajput community,
52:12with demonstrations,
52:13even vandalism reported outside the MP's home.
52:16A video is circulating online
52:17showing a dramatic nighttime bike rally,
52:19with a long convoy moving through streets
52:21under police watch.
52:23This video has nothing to do
52:24with Rana Sangha or the protests.
52:26India Today's fact-check team
52:27traced the clip back to an unrelated event,
52:30a traditional horse cart race
52:31held in February 2025
52:32between Karnatak's Chinchali village
52:34and Maharashtra's Sangli district.
52:36This fact-check on viral fake news
52:38is done by India Today's team AFA.
52:40This is A.I. Sana signing off.
52:42All right, with that,
52:46it's a wrap on this edition of News Today.
52:49Have a good night.
52:50We do leave you with these visuals
52:51of an Indian origin scientist
52:53discovering the first signs of alien life
52:56outside the solar system.
52:57Scientists have detected possible
52:59biosignature gases in the atmosphere
53:01of exoplanet K218.
53:05Now, these biogases produced only by life on Earth,
53:09hinting at the presence of microbial life.
53:11Take a look at this report.
53:12We leave you with that.
53:14Have a good night.
53:14We'll see you tomorrow.
53:28The eternal hunt for other life,
53:31for aliens.
53:32For generations,
53:33we have toyed with the idea
53:34of how aliens look
53:35or where they live and what not.
53:41And now,
53:43the first ever sign of life
53:45outside planet Earth.
53:48In a groundbreaking discovery,
53:51an Indian origin scientist
53:52has uncovered potential signs of life
53:54on a distant planet,
53:56bringing us one step closer
53:58to answering one of Universe's biggest questions.
54:00The famous James Webb Space Telescope
54:08has detected clearest signals so far
54:10of possible biological activity
54:12beyond our solar system.
54:16So what do we mean
54:17by biological activity?
54:20Scientists have detected
54:21two gases in the atmosphere of a planet.
54:24These gases are emitted
54:25only by microbial organisms like algae.
54:28This moment in history of science
54:30will be viewed as a paradigm shift
54:32in our search for life.
54:33And the reason for that
54:35is that we have breached
54:37the level where
54:38we are demonstrating
54:40that if there is life out there,
54:42if there are Heistian worlds out there,
54:44there is ocean worlds
54:45with hydrogate atmospheres
54:46with life on them,
54:48we are basically establishing here
54:50that we can detect
54:51that kind of signature,
54:54those kinds of planets
54:55and biosignatures in them.
54:58So that is a paradigm shift in our life.
55:04So where have these gases been found?
55:06On a planet far, far away
55:08called K2 18b.
55:10In the Leo constellation,
55:12this planet falls
55:13in what's called a habitable zone
55:15where water exists.
55:17And this planet too has oceans
55:19that could be teeming
55:20with microbial life.
55:22Even with the excitement
55:25this discovery has sparked,
55:26scientists are urging caution,
55:29emphasizing that more data
55:30and research are needed
55:31before any definitive conclusions
55:33can be made.
55:35This is a monumental discovery.
55:38It is very important,
55:40but we also have to be
55:41extremely cautious.
55:42The reason is that
55:43this is one of the biggest questions
55:45we have asked as a species
55:46in all of science,
55:47and we have to deal with it
55:49very carefully in that
55:51we want to be really,
55:52really robust in establishing
55:53whether this is actually
55:54life that we are seeing.
55:56We want two things.
55:57We want more observations
55:58to confirm that
55:59this signal is robust.
56:00We are seeing it
56:01at a three sigma level.
56:03We still have three
56:04in a thousand chance
56:05of it being a fluke.
56:06So we want to observe more
56:07to get it to a five sigma level,
56:09less than a chance
56:10in a million,
56:10a part in a million
56:11of a fluke.
56:13But we also want to do
56:15more theoretical
56:15and observational studies
56:16to make sure
56:18that there is absolutely
56:19no other way
56:20we can make this molecule
56:21without life.
56:22I think it is our responsibility
56:24as scientists
56:24and as part of a society
56:27that we want to answer
56:28this very deep question
56:29in a very careful
56:30and robust manner.
56:31But the excitement
56:32is still there nevertheless
56:33that we've got the capability
56:35to do it now.
56:40Though it does not confirm
56:42an alien life,
56:43the discovery
56:44is a major step forward.
56:45Scientists believe
56:47we may be closer
56:48than ever
56:48to answering
56:49the timeless question.
56:51Are we alone
56:52in the universe
56:53or not?
56:55Bureau Report,
56:56India Today.