The Supreme Court’s ongoing hearing on petitions challenging the Waqf Act has taken a significant turn, with the bench emphasizing the “presumption of constitutionality” for laws passed by Parliament. This principle means that unless there's a clear and glaring violation of constitutional provisions, the courts generally will not interfere.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court:
-
A two-judge bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih made it clear that:
“There is a presumption of constitutionality for the statute and courts cannot interfere unless a glaring case is made out. This is what we have been taught since college... otherwise we know what is happening.”
-
This signals judicial restraint, especially in the face of politically or socially sensitive legislation, unless a clear constitutional breach is demonstrated.
Current Status of the Waqf Law:
-
The Centre has paused two contentious aspects of the Waqf law:
-
Denotification of Waqf properties, including those declared ‘waqf by user’.
-
Appointments to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards.
-
-
The ‘waqf by user’ provision is particularly controversial, as it allows land to be designated as waqf property based on historical religious or charitable use, even in the absence of formal documentation.
Government’s Legal Stand:
-
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta proposed that the court focus on three specific issues:
-
Whether waqf by user or court-declared waqf properties can be denotified.
-
Whether a property is automatically waqf if the district collector’s probe finds it so.
-
The composition of the state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council.
-
Petitioners' Argument (Muslim Side):
-
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Muslim community’s interests, rejected the compartmentalized approach and instead argued that:
-
The case involves fundamental constitutional rights, especially concerning religious freedom and property rights under Articles 25 and 26.
-
The amended 2025 Waqf law (which petitioners refer to) represents a “creeping acquisition” of waqf property by the state.
-
Sibal argued:
“This act is for Waqf protection but is aimed at capturing the waqf. The law is designed in such a way that waqf property is taken away without following any process.”
-
Broader Implications:
-
The dispute raises constitutional questions about:
-
Autonomy of religious communities in managing their institutions and properties.
-
The balance between public interest (e.g., urban development) and minority rights.
-
The role of the state in intervening or regulating religious property.
-
-
The court’s restraint, citing the presumption of constitutionality, suggests it will not entertain broad constitutional challenges unless violations are very clear and severe.
What’s Next:
-
The case is ongoing, and the Supreme Court has not yet issued interim relief or directions.
-
Final arguments will likely determine:
-
The extent of government control over waqf properties.
-
The validity of “waqf by user”.
-
The future composition and independence of waqf governance bodies.
-
This case could set a landmark precedent regarding religious property rights and minority autonomy in India.
