Delving into the batch of pleas that these were filed without any proper materials to support, Mehta argued that three days of hearings had revealed no ex-facie evidence of unconstitutionality. He questioned that mere legal propositions or hypothetical arguments do not justify halting the operation of a law duly enacted by the Parliament.

Sibal argued that can waqfs used for religious purposes, merely for being unregistered, be stripped of the status. "Can the government for its own fault of not conducting surveys now claim waqf properties as government land by a legislative fiat?," Sibal questioned.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, supports the 2025 Act. He said that ‘waqf by user’ is not a core practice of Islam, as it did not involve any formal dedication. It was merely a way of holding land as waqf through adverse possession.

Senior advocate Ranjeet Kumar appearing for Haryana government and a tribal organisation supporting the 2025 Amendments, said in Rajasthan, a Waqf claim was made over a 500-acre land given for mining purposes.

On the other hand, Mehta, however, opposed these submissions of Sibal, and said that the dedication of land as waqf is permanent and irreversible. Therefore, land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes cannot be dedicated as waqf.

"The state restricts the alienation of tribal land to protect tribal communities. Otherwise, anyone could become a mutawalli (Manager of waqf property) and misuse the waqf to their detriment," the Centre's law officer contended.

Adblock test (Why?)