NEW DELHI: After countering the Muslim side's argument that non-Muslims could theoretically form a majority in the Central Waqf Council and Auqaf Boards, Centre told Supreme Court Wednesday that an ill-founded attempt was made to project discrimination of Muslims by comparing composition of waqf bodies with religious endowment boards of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta exhibited documents, including the minority affairs ministry's written assurance to the Joint Parliamentary Committee and its affidavit in SC, to apprise a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih that the council and boards would never lose their minority character as an overwhelming majority of members would always be Muslims.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had taken nearly 30 minutes on Tuesday to highlight apprehension among Muslims about the council and boards losing their minority character by claiming that the govt, through the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, at least theoretically intended to make non-Muslims the majority in these two bodies. He had asked when the govt never attempted to make non-believers in Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity members in their religious endowment boards, why were waqfs of Muslims singled out. He termed it discrimination on the ground of religion, which violated the fundamental right to non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 15.
Mehta said Hindu religious endowment board members entered temples and even supervised rituals. The charity commissioner, who can be non-Hindu, can appoint archakas (pujaris) and remove them for not performing rituals or for immoral activities, and SC had upheld this by terming appointment of archakas as a secular activity, he added.
The SG said Hindu personal laws were codified in 1956, but Muslims continued to be governed by Sharia law. Adjudicating a petition highlighting this discrimination, SC in 1996 had said such a comparison was not possible and reforms in personal law and religious activities were a gradual process.
"There cannot be any comparison with Hindu religious endowment boards as they deal with religion and rituals. But the boards deal with management of waqf properties, which is a secular activity, and the state has the power to regulate it through legislation. None of the petitioners has challenged Parliament's legislative competence to enact the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025," the SG said.
He said the JPC had consulted Archaeological Survey of India on ancient monuments being taken out of the purview of waqf. ASI said while religious activities, which have been going on for years, had not been stopped in protected and ancient monuments, waqf boards managing these monuments as waqfs had unilaterally allowed commercial activities in these ancient spaces, hindering preservation and conservation works.
Mehta said in certain cases, waqf boards had restrained ASI from carrying out repair and restoration work in ancient monuments.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta exhibited documents, including the minority affairs ministry's written assurance to the Joint Parliamentary Committee and its affidavit in SC, to apprise a bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih that the council and boards would never lose their minority character as an overwhelming majority of members would always be Muslims.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had taken nearly 30 minutes on Tuesday to highlight apprehension among Muslims about the council and boards losing their minority character by claiming that the govt, through the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, at least theoretically intended to make non-Muslims the majority in these two bodies. He had asked when the govt never attempted to make non-believers in Hinduism, Sikhism and Christianity members in their religious endowment boards, why were waqfs of Muslims singled out. He termed it discrimination on the ground of religion, which violated the fundamental right to non-discrimination guaranteed under Article 15.
Mehta said Hindu religious endowment board members entered temples and even supervised rituals. The charity commissioner, who can be non-Hindu, can appoint archakas (pujaris) and remove them for not performing rituals or for immoral activities, and SC had upheld this by terming appointment of archakas as a secular activity, he added.
The SG said Hindu personal laws were codified in 1956, but Muslims continued to be governed by Sharia law. Adjudicating a petition highlighting this discrimination, SC in 1996 had said such a comparison was not possible and reforms in personal law and religious activities were a gradual process.
"There cannot be any comparison with Hindu religious endowment boards as they deal with religion and rituals. But the boards deal with management of waqf properties, which is a secular activity, and the state has the power to regulate it through legislation. None of the petitioners has challenged Parliament's legislative competence to enact the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025," the SG said.
He said the JPC had consulted Archaeological Survey of India on ancient monuments being taken out of the purview of waqf. ASI said while religious activities, which have been going on for years, had not been stopped in protected and ancient monuments, waqf boards managing these monuments as waqfs had unilaterally allowed commercial activities in these ancient spaces, hindering preservation and conservation works.
Mehta said in certain cases, waqf boards had restrained ASI from carrying out repair and restoration work in ancient monuments.
You may also like
'Settled through trade: Donald Trump again claims credit for India-Pakistan ceasefire
Martin Lewis MSE urges Brits earning cashback to check bank account now
Wasps will turn and fly away if you leave one fruit in your garden
Plum boosts interest rates on two ISAs offering customers up to 4.95%
The 60p kitchen staple that will make your chicken skin 'amazingly crispy'
