“If eight are Muslims, two may be judges’ who might not be Muslims. That leaves a majority of non-Muslims. How is this consistent with the religious character of the institution?” the bench asked.The tensions briefly escalated when the law officer appeared to question the neutrality of the all-Hindu judicial bench.”When we sit here, we shed our personal identities. For us, all parties are equal before the law. That comparison is entirely misplaced,” the bench said.”Why not allow non-Hindus in the advisory boards of Hindu temples, then?” it asked.The bench, which did not issue a formal notice as of now, said it would not consider staying the law at the present stage.The apex court questioned Mehta on how “waqf by user” could be disallowed as many would not have requisite documents to get such waqfs registered.”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.The amended provision states, “Provided that the existing waqf by user properties registered on or before the commencement of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 as waqf by user will remain as waqf properties except that the property, wholly or in part, is in dispute or is a government property.”The bench during the hearing asked, “How will you register such waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment, order or decree as void. You can only take the basis.”
Source link
