Reader TTS

THE SUPREME COURT ON TUESDAY HEARD PETITIONS CHALLENGING THE WAQF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025. CHIEF JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI EMPHASIZED THAT COURTS CANNOT INTERVENE IN LAWS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT UNLESS

A CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS DEMONSTRATED. New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that laws passed by Parliament carry a presumption of constitutionality, and courts cannot

intervene unless a clear and serious constitutional violation is established. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud made the remark while hearing petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment)

Act, 2025. A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih was hearing the matter on May 20, with the Centre urging the court to confine the scope of the hearing to three key

issues. These include the powers of Waqf boards to de-notify properties declared Waqf by a court, a user, or a deed. The Centre requested the court to restrict its interim deliberations to

specific areas of the new law. However, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, strongly opposed this, arguing that such a significant

legislation cannot be examined in a piecemeal manner. CJI STRESSES PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN LAWS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT Sibal contended that the law was intended to enable the state

to seize Waqf properties. In response, CJI Gavai reiterated the constitutional protection given to laws passed by Parliament. “Unless there is a clear issue, courts cannot intervene,” he

said, adding, “especially in the current context, we don’t need to say more.” CJI Gavai further commented, “I have visited dargahs, churches…every place receives offerings,” after Sibal

pointed out that mosques, unlike temples, do not receive offerings and that the law targeted “Waqf by user” properties such as the Babri Masjid. DEBATE OVER MANDATORY REGISTRATION OF WAQF

PROPERTIES CONTINUES The bench then sought clarity on whether earlier Waqf laws made registration of Waqf properties mandatory. Sibal responded that all post-1954 amendments required

registration and that the term “shall” was used, implying compulsion. The court, however, questioned whether use of “shall” alone rendered registration mandatory. Sibal clarified there was

confusion about whether this requirement dated back to 1954 or even earlier to 1923. The court noted Sibal's submission that while registration was required, the earlier law did not

specify consequences for failure to register, thereby implying no real legal penalty for non-registration. PETITIONERS SAY AMENDED LAW VIOLATES RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS PRACTICE In a broader

constitutional argument, Sibal said the amended Waqf law violated Article 25 of the Constitution by stripping citizens of their right to freely practise their religion. He cited the example

of ASI-protected sites, saying the new law declares that such properties cannot be Waqf. To this, the Chief Justice asked, “Does this take away your right to practise your religion?” and

added that he had seen worshippers freely praying at an ASI-protected temple in Khajuraho. Sibal countered, saying the law’s declaration that such a property is no longer Waqf infringes on

the fundamental right to religious practice. The bench recorded the argument that the law violates Article 25 and reserved further observations for later hearings.