Although various petitions challenged the WAQF -amendment Act has been submitted to the Supreme Court by political parties and Muslim organizations, at least seven states have approached the Tophof to support the legislation, which try to intervene in the case and to conduct their arguments in court.
These states claim that the law introduces important reforms that are aimed at improving management and regulating WAQF properties, improving transparency and guaranteeing better governance.
Here are the most important arguments of the states that promote the WAQF -Borgocht:
Madhya Pradesh: The State has argued that constitutional objections that have been increased – with regard to alleged discriminatory treatment, absence of judicial testing and arbitrariness – are without merit and must be rejected in the beginning.
Furthermore, it added that the law strives to start substantial reforms in the management and regulation of WAQF properties by improving transparency, accountability and administrative mechanisms.
Chhattisgarh: According to Chhattisgarh’s plea, the law is intended to make the WAQF board more inclusive, with representation of various Muslims for Beter WAQF board and administration.
The WAQF (Amendment) ACT, 2005 establishes a transparent and responsible system for WAQF administration and aims to achieve a transformational shift in the management of WAQF properties, the State claims.
Assam: The State has pointed out that the newly inserted section 3rd imposes a bar on the declaration of any country in planned or tribal areas (fifth schedule or sixth schedule) as WAQF. In Assam there are eight administrative districts, a total of 35, fall under the sixth schedule of the Constitution.
Rajasthan: It has said that the law is not only constitutionally healthy and non-discriminatory, but is also rooted in the values ​​of transparency, fairness and accountability, and serves to protect the interests of both religious donations and the broader public.
The plea of ​​Rajasthan also stated that the statute does not create or discriminates unequal treatment a religious group. It only prescribes a reasonably regulatory framework to prevent illegal claims and added that supplications challenge the amendment, unfortunately the reality on the ground that says that state administrations are not appreciated.
Maharashtra, Haryana and Uttarakhand have also submitted applications that states that the amendment Act proposes a streamlined, technology-driven and legal robust framework for managing WAQF assets, while at the same time promotes socio-economic development for the intended beneficiaries.
To coordinate
#States #WAQF #Act #Supreme #Court #arguments