The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, should be viewed as a legal aspect and not from a religious point of view, say experts
Speaking at a seminar on the subject recently, she agreed that there are many pitfalls and challenges in the Act and these provisions need to be reworked. Ms. Divya pointed out that main bone of contention of 'Waqf by user' and the 'Registration of the land' was already mentioned in the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act of 1913 and later in the 1954 Waqf Act and also in the later amendments. So the new amendment having these aspects is not new. 'Moreover, the Act encapsulates what the Sachar Committee had intended to do,' she said.
The UMEED Act touches on some important aspects such as identifying which is Waqf land and which is not and brings a judicial angle to the tribunal, the senior advocate explained. Further, under the new Act the decision of tribunal can be taken in appeal to the High Court.
'Land is a revenue subject and not a religious subject. Earlier, only the Board had the records, now even the Revenue department will have proper records. And it also clears the doubt that who would be the surveyor, as the Act empowers the District Collector as the competent authority,' she explained.
However, senior advocate I.M. Ahmed says the government should consider the fact that 'Once a waqf - always a waqf', as the lands have been given centuries ago and many lands do not have even proper documents, he said. 'It is true that the Waqf land has not been properly utilised and that is why it would be appreciable if the government enables a proper utilisation of the land so that the community develops and also resume the Waqf lands which have been encroached,' he said.
The government needs to address the pitfalls and give more transparency in the area of concerns such as inclusion of non-Muslim members on Waqf boards, on the argument of increased State control over Waqf properties, concern over overreach and interference in religious matters, among others, he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
27 minutes ago
- India Today
High Court rejects Hindu side's plea to declare Shahi Idgah disputed structure
In a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi and Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Hindu side seeking to declare the Shahi Masjid as a disputed petition, Application A-44, had sought to officially designate the Shahi Idgah mosque as a "disputed structure" in court records and further proceedings. The petition, filed by Advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh, representing the Hindu side, was part of a larger case concerning the alleged encroachment of land near the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple complex by the Shahi Idgah single bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, which is currently hearing the case, rejected the plea. Application A-44 specifically urged the court to direct the concerned stenographer to replace the term "Shahi Idgah Mosque" with "disputed structure" throughout the ongoing case documents and future proceedings. However, the Muslim side submitted a written objection to this demand, opposing any such change in official references to the High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, rejected the petition and upheld the objection raised by the Muslim case is among 18 petitions filed by various members of the Hindu side relating to the contentious land and religious claims surrounding the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi and the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura. The mosque stands adjacent to what many Hindus believe is the birthplace of Lord next hearing in the case has been scheduled for August 2.- EndsMust Watch
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court warns of CBI probe if T.N. police fail to act against Ponmudy for hate speech
The Madras High Court on Friday (July 4, 2025) warned that it would be constrained to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe if the Tamil Nadu police do not take appropriate action on the complaints received against former Minister K. Ponmudy for his derogatory speech against Vaishnavites, Saivites, and women in general. Justice P. Velmurugan also questioned the need for the former Minister to have made such comments. He decided to take a final call on July 8, 2025, on a suo motuwrit petition taken up by the High Court against the Minister at the instance of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, who held the MP/MLA portfolio in April 2025. Earlier, Advocate General P.S. Raman told the court the police had received just three complaints before the High Court initiated the suo motu proceedings, and all three were closed after not finding any cognisable offence to have been made out for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). However, thereafter, 112 complaints were received by the police across the State, and they were under examination. He added the complainants could always seek the remedy available to them under the law if they were aggrieved against the closure of their complaints by the police. Mr. Ponmudy was serving as Forest Minister when the speech was delivered at a meeting organised by Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (TPDK) in Chennai on April 8, 2025. Justice Venkatesh had taken serious note of the issue on April 23, 2025, after video clips of the speech went viral on the social media. Questioning the police for not having registered a criminal case against him on charges of delivering a hate speech, the judge had written: 'The comments, on the face of it, are completely derogatory to women and deliberately spew venom and hatred on the two main sects of Hinduism viz., Saivism and Vaishnavism.'
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Gods dwell where women are honoured: Telangana HC CJ
Gods dwell where women are honoured: Judge Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul of the Telangana High Court has said that true empowerment of women requires respect at home, the workplace and in society. Speaking at a felicitation organised by the High Court's Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC), he referred to the saying, 'where women are honoured, there the gods dwell.' Justice Paul noted the rise in women judges in Madhya Pradesh and Telangana and called for similar progress elsewhere. He drew a parallel between preserving nature and valuing women for societal growth. Justice T Madhavi Devi, GSICC chairperson, said the committee promotes gender equality, awareness and fair treatment. Formed in June 2023, it has received two complaints, both resolved. Quoting Vivekananda, she said global welfare needs gender balance, adding that many women remain silent due to stigma. Justice Juvvadi Sridevi praised GSICC's role in promoting a safe workplace and highlighted digital harassment concerns post-COVID. Counsel: Decisions predate Srilakshmi's tenure Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Thursday adjourned hearing on a Criminal Revision Petition filed by IAS officer Y Srilakshmi to July 10. The petition relates to the Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) illegal mining case. The SC had remanded the matter to the HC, observing that the earlier order had not fully considered the CBI's submissions. Srilakshmi, an Andhra Pradesh-cadre officer, is an accused in the case involving alleged illegal mining. A CBI special court earlier dismissed her discharge plea, which was allowed by the High Court. The CBI challenged this in the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court order. Senior counsel K Vivek Reddy, appearing for Srilakshmi, argued that the allegations were unfounded, pointing out that her tenure as secretary began in May 2006 and key decisions predate this. He also submitted that 'captive mining' was formalised only in 2015 and that the CBI had not initially named her in the FIR or first chargesheet. Malla Reddy colleges' plea for additional seats rejected The Telangana High Court has dismissed appeals filed by the Malla Reddy group of colleges seeking allotment of additional seats. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice J Sree Devi Renuka upheld an earlier decision by Justice K Lakshman rejecting the writ petitions. Senior counsels S Niranjan Reddy and D Prakash Reddy, appearing for the colleges, argued that the state had selectively granted additional seats to other colleges and denied their clients on alleged political grounds, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy, representing the state, submitted that seat allotments were made considering local demand, infrastructure and educational needs. He said institutions granted additional seats were in different areas and there was no case for expansion at Malla Reddy colleges. The bench agreed there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the decision-making process and dismissed the appeals.
