“This denies me the right to create a waqf in accordance with my faith,” he said. Such a restriction, he said, was arbitrary and impinged on religious freedom. “Waqf by user” refers to a practice where a property is recognised as a religious or charitable endowment (waqf) based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there isn’t a formal, written declaration of waqf by the owner. He then referred to Section 3C which permits the government to unilaterally determine whether a disputed property is government land, which, if so determined, would not be considered waqf. “How can a government officeressentially a judge in his own causebe empowered to decide on property ownership in a dispute involving the government itself?” Sibal asked. The senior lawyer then referred to Section 3D of the amended law and said it nullified waqf declarations if the property was already designated a protected monument under the heritage laws. Sibal raised concerns over retroactive invalidation, stating that many religious sites also fall within protected zones. “What happens to mosques that are part of such monuments?” he asked. He highlighted a provision barring any waqf declaration on land belonging to scheduled tribes under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution. “This is overbroad and disproportionate,” he said. “Not all tribal areas are the same, and many scheduled tribe Muslims are impacted. It’s not a balanced provision,” Sibal added. He referred to the composition of the Central Waqf Council as a focal point and said inclusion of non-Muslim members, especially in high numbers, dilutes the religious character of a body meant to oversee Muslim charitable endowments. “Unlike Hindu and Sikh religious boards, where only members of the respective faith are represented, this council includes MPs and professionals who need not be Muslims,” he said, “and this violates the guarantee in Article 26 of religious denominations managing their own affairs.” He also said the Waqf Act, in its current form, represented a parliamentary overreach into the domain of religious self-governance. “Parliament may make laws, but they cannot interfere with the essential and integral aspects of my religion,” he said. Sibal added, “This Act amounts to state control over 200 million people’s faith in the country.”
Source link
