The Supreme Court will hear the case on the Waqf Amendment Act on May 15. The CJI declined to issue an order before his retirement. The central government did not issue any new order by May 5.
New Delhi: The hearing on petitions challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act in the Supreme Court has been adjourned. The next hearing in this matter will now be held on May 15. A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna delivered this decision. During this, the CJI also clarified that he did not wish to reserve any order on such sensitive petitions in the final days of his tenure.
What is the case about?
Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court regarding the Waqf (Amendment) Act, questioning its constitutional validity. Petitioners claim that the amended Waqf Act violates several fundamental rights and lacks transparency. They also argue that the Act attempts to provide undue benefits to a particular section of society.
Why was the hearing adjourned?
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna stated that he is retiring on May 13 and does not wish to deliver a final order on such a sensitive matter at the end of his term. He believes that these petitions require in-depth consideration and that it is essential to hear all parties. He stated that for a fair and impartial hearing, the case has been assigned to a new bench.
The matter will now be placed before a new bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai on May 15, which will conduct the next hearing.
What is the central government's stance?
Earlier, on April 17, the central government assured the Supreme Court that it would defer any new action related to Waqf properties until May 5. This includes actions such as de-notifying properties claimed by Waqf ("User by Waqf") or making new appointments to the Waqf Board.
The government also told the court that the Act was passed by Parliament after due deliberation and should not be stayed without proper hearing.
What did the CJI say?
Chief Justice Khanna stated that the central government raised some issues in its affidavit that require further discussion. He also said that the court has not yet fully considered the central government's response, and some figures and claims are still unclear. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to take a hasty decision.
