Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain raised concerns over the Waqf-by-user concept, questioning its validity and urging the court to reconsider it. He emphasized that the practice should be stayed, and efforts should be made to reclaim properties that were acquired based on this provision, highlighting its potential issues.
New Delhi: As the Supreme Court expressed concerns regarding certain provisions of the recently enacted Waqf Amendment Act, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain raised questions about the validity of the “Waqf-by-user” concept.
He emphasized the need to “bring back” properties that were acquired under this premise.
Jain told,
“There was a Shiv Temple, which was demolished in Delhi, and it was said that lord Shiva didn’t need our protection; the Supreme Court later upheld this decision… If temple-by-user and church-by-user are not a thing, why should Waqf-by-user exist? Instead, the concept Waqf-by-user should be stayed, and efforts should be made to bring back properties acquired on the basis of this concept,”
He defended a provision in the Waqf Amendment Act that prohibits the concept of ‘waqf-by-user’ in land disputes, stating that Parliament has reaffirmed its commitment to reclaim government properties designated as Waqf.
The lawyer explained,
“There were few things left in the Waqf (Amendment) Act as per our expectations, but the least work that the Parliament has done is that at the places of the dispute, Waqf-by-user will not be accepted. The second thing is if any government property has been declared Waqf property – we will take it back,”
A ‘waqf by user’ refers to property deemed waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes, even if there is no formal documentation.
Jain also objected to the Supreme Court’s inclination to intervene in the matter, arguing that “it could not directly address the issue under Article 32, as it might set a wrong precedent.” He pointed out that in previous similar cases, the Supreme Court directed parties to approach the High Court.
Jain stated,
“In yesterday’s hearing, the Supreme Court said that it would issue an interim order and interfere in the matter. However, my take is that the Supreme Court cannot directly hear this issue under Article 32 because similar cases were brought to the Supreme Court, and they were asked to go to the High Courts. So, if the Supreme Court passes an order this time, it will set a wrong precedent,”
He further proposed that all cases related to the Waqf Amendment Act be consolidated in a single High Court, with a constitutional bench formed to address them within six months.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
