'Waqf is not an essential part of Islam, only charity is', the central government's argument in the Supreme Court
New Delhi
The central government on Wednesday said an important thing during the debate on Waqf in the Supreme Court. The government said that Waqf, which is an Islamic concept, is not an essential part of Islam. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a fundamental right under the Constitution. The government is saying this in response to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that until it is proved that Waqf is an essential part of Islam, the rest of the arguments are useless.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of the central government, told the Supreme Court that Waqf cannot be considered a fundamental right. He said that until it is proved that Waqf is an essential part of Islam, no claim can be made on it. According to Live Law, Mehta said, 'Waqf is an Islamic concept, there is no dispute over it, but until it is shown that Waqf is an essential part of Islam, all the other arguments are useless.'
Mehta started his talk while defending the Act. He said that no person has the right to claim government land. Even though he has been catarked as a Waqf under the 'Waqf by user' principle. 'Waqf by user' means that if a land has been used for religious or charity work for a long time, it is declared Waqf. Mehta clearly said, "No one has authority over government land."
He cited an old decision, saying that if any property belongs to the government and has been declared a Waqf, the government can save it. The Solicitor General further said, 'Waqf by user is not a fundamental right, it was recognized by law. The judgment states that if any right is given as a legislative policy, then that right can always be withdrawn.
On Tuesday, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rajiv Dhawan argued on behalf of the petitioners. Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared in the Supreme Court to present the side of the Center. In front of the bench of Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai and Justice Augustin George Christ, SG Tushar Mehta responded to the objection of the petitioners, stating that the new Waqf law violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
According to the report of the Bar and Bench, SG Tushar Mehta said, "I did not know about this part of Islam until I did not do research that Waqf is an Islamic concept, but it is not an essential part of Islam." He said that the concept of charity is present in every religion. Even in Christianity, but the Supreme Court says that this is not necessary for anyone. SG Tushar Mehta said that there are things like donating among Hindus and the same is in Sikhism, but in any religion it has not been said to be necessary.
SG Mehta said that if the financial situation of most people of the Muslim community is not very good and they are unable to do waqf, will they not be Muslims. This is a test conducted by the Supreme Court, to determine whether a practice is an essential religious practice. He said that it is not necessary to do charity in any religion, similarly there is Waqf in Islam.
SG Tushar Mehta said that Waqf by user is not a fundamental right. It was recognized by law in 1954 and before that in the Bengal Act. Referring to a decision, he said that if any right has been provided by law in the form of legislative policy, it can be taken away by the state forever.