5 sharp concerns that CJI/ Supreme Court asked–

India’s leading court Wednesday (April 16) listened to lots of appeals testing the constitutional legitimacy of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. While the federal government of India, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, suggests the act is suggested to far better manage and handle Waqf homes, resistance celebrations claim it targets essential civil liberties ofMuslims All India Majlis- e-Ittehadul Muslimeen Chief Asaduddin Owaisi in his appeal stated the legislation “brazenly violates the fundamental rights of Muslims and the Muslim community”.

A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and additionally making up Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan listened to the appeals on Wednesday, which saw extreme dispute in between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and elderly supporters Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rajeev Dhawan, and CU Singh, that were standing for the petitioners.

Here are the concerns that the Supreme Court and the CJI asked throughout the hearing.

 ### **Will the federal government enable Muslims to be component of Hindu spiritual counts on? **.

The Waqf (Amendment) Act enables non-Muslims to be a component of Waqf board. Reacting to this, the Supreme Court asked whether the federal government prepared to enable non-Hindus in the bodies regulating Hindu holy places.

“Mr Mehta, are you claiming that from currently on, you will enable Muslims to be component of the Hindu endowment boards? Say it freely,” the court asked addressing the solicitor general.

The court further added that “regarding Waqf boards and Waqf Council, ex officio members can be appointed, but the other members have to be Muslims.”

 ### **Inheritance **.

Senior supporter Kapil Sibal, standing for the petitioners, began by checking out the opposed areas of the brand-new legislation. “Who is the State,” he asked, “to decide how inheritance should work in my religion?” According to him, Islamic legislation claims inheritance starts after fatality– not in the past.

Responding to this, the CJI stated, “But in Hindus it does happen… so Parliament has enacted a law for Muslims. Maybe it’s not like the law for Hindus. Article 26 will not bar the enactment of the law in this case. Article 26 is universal — and it is secular in the fashion that it applies to all.”

 ### **What ‘dispute’ would certainly suggest? **.

The Chief Justice of India additionally looked for clearness on the problem that the residential or commercial property should not be ‘in dispute’.

Before the Britishers came, we did not have any kind of enrollment. Many of the mosques are developed in 14th or 15th centuries. To need them to create a signed up action is difficult. Most of the situations, claim Jama Masjid Delhi, the waqf will certainly be waqf-by-user,” CJI stated.

 ### **Waqf- by-user **.

As debates proceeded, the CJI indicated the stipulation on conflicts with the federal government and doubted why the residential or commercial property should not be dealt with as waqf up until the disagreement is solved. “Why will it not remain a waqf property? Let the civil court decide that,” CJI stated. “Mr Tushar Mehta, tell us. Waqf-by-user, if accepted prior to 2025 Act, is it now declared to be void or non-existent?” CJI asked.

‘Waqf by user’ describes a building being dealt with as a spiritual or philanthropic endowment just due to the fact that it’s been utilized in this way for a very long time– also if the proprietor never ever formally stated it as waqf in composing.

 ### **Concern over arbitrary homes being stated as ‘waqf’ **.

During Wednesday’s debates, CJI Khanna elevated brows over exactly how particular homes wound up being categorized as Waqf.

“We have been told the Delhi high court building is on Waqf land, Oberoi Hotel is on Waqf land… We are not saying all Waqf-by-user properties are wrongly registered, but there are some genuine areas of concern too,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed.