However, when the Supreme Court raised Questions Over the same is during a hearing against the Waqf (amendment) act, the center agreed to Paus any appointment to the central waqf Council and State Waqf Borde. – The next date of the court hearing.

Similary, the centre undertook in the court that the character of noqf property, including ‘waqf-by-user’, which decolared by notification or by registration, would be able to change.

Again, this was contrast to the centre’s Instad, the modi government Had Flaged Prime Properties alleged under waqf, with minister of minister of minority affairs kiren rijiju mention 123 such premises in the national capital.

In the parliamentary panel which time up the WAQF Bill12 Opposition MPS-Arvind Sawant (Shiv Sena -ubt), Kalyan Bannerjee (Trinamool Congress), Mohammad Nadimul Haque (TMC), The DMK’s A Raja and MM Abdullah, Aam Aadmi Party (Aam Aadmi Party). Mohibbullah Nadvi (Samajwadi Party), The Congress’s Syed Naseer Hussain, Mohammad Jawed, Imran Masood and Gauurav Gogoi, and Asaduddin Owaisi (Aimim) – Had Flagged in Their Dissent Notes In The The Legislation for inclusion of non-muslims in waqf bodies and the rejection of waqf-by-user practice.

During the debate on the bill in the lok sabha, congress general secretary KC venugopal questioned the inclusion of non-muslims in waqf boards, while giving the examples of the examples of the vaishno devi temple act and Devaswom Board. WHICH CEEP OUT NON-Hindus under Certain Conditions. Waqf Properties Were as religious as temple trusts, Venugopal Said.

Defending the new composition plans for waqf boards, union home minister amit shah say: “The opposition is Spreading the Misconception This is this bill is an interference in the religion in the Muslim Activities and the prophets. Them… Donations of Non-Muslim Members, the Waqf Board or its premises, will be related to religious activities. “

However, he said, “… it will definitely have to be seen as the property of waqf is maintained property or not”.

Significantly, during the hearing on the matter in the Apex court, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna Raised this Issue, Saying: “Are you suggesting that minorities, including music, should be included. Hindu Religious Institutions? “

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s Suggestion That Even The Bench Should Not Be Hearing The Case By That Logic Attracted a Sharp Respons From The Court, With The CJI Saying The Bench Lost Its Religion The Bench Lost Slig.

On waqf-by-user, congress mp naseer hussain said in the Rajya Sabha, “India is an ancient country … This is not just about Masjids, but among the groups, gurudwaras, churches, churches… if you ask avers for 400, 500. 600-ald Buildings, where will the proof that communities believe that is exist and they are in long usage. “

During the hearing on the matter, cji khanna acknowledged the difference presenting documents regarding pre-colonial buildings, and said that while the while is that Might be Might Bef-by-Besser Proportion, three. Genuine Ones Too. “Now the fact of the matter is, before the British camera, we have any registration of proporty … Many of the masjids may have been constructed in the 14th, 16th, 16th, 17th centuries. Will be impossible, “The CJI said.

The solicitor general argued that “Nothing prevented them (The waqf users) from going and getting (property) registered after 1923”. “It was mandatory.”

The court observed further that act had good as well as Questionable Provisions, and it did not wish to stay it entryly. Meta then agreed on the government’s Behalf to pause appointments to boards and any denotification of waqf-by-user till the court heard the material next.