Sibal and senior lawyer, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for some petitioners objected to it and said, there cannot be any piecemeal hearing.One of the issues the court had earmarked was the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed. The second issue was in connection with the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contend only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members. The third issue relates to a provision that says a waqf property will not be treated as a waqf when the collector conducts an inquiry to ascertain if the property is government land.Rajeev Dhavan, Singhvi and Huzefa Ahmadi alleged that the Act singled out the Muslim community in the case.”It is only the Muslim community, where property has been dealt with in this way….A client of mine, who is Sikh, says I want to contribute to the waqf and I believe this property should not be taken away. The entire secular edifice that your lordships have built time and time again (will be taken away),” Dhavan said.Echoing on similar voices with Dhavan, Sibal said that if a Waqf property was declared as a protected ancient monument under the AMASR Act, that did not affect the ownership or use of the property as a Waqf. He cited the example of the Delhi Jama Masjid, though notified as a protected area, can be used as a Waqf. However, the 2025 Amendment (Section 3D) invalidates Waqf declarations of protected monuments, he contended. This is a violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 25 and 26.
Source link
