New Delhi, May 22 -- The Centre on Wednesday defended the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in the Supreme Court and said that though waqf was an Islamic concept, it was not an essential part of Islam. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that a stay on the controversial law will lead to "anomalies" and create a legal regime that gives a premium to unregistered waqf properties. "Waqf is an Islamic concept. But it is not an essential part of Islam.. Waqf is nothing but just charity in Islam." "Charity is recognised in every religion, and it cannot be regarded as an essential tenet of any religion," Mehta said. Earlier in the day, Mehta told a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and justice Augustine George Masih that nobody could claim a right over public land by the using waqf-by-user principle, where a property is recognised as waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes even without formal documentation. He said apprehensions that the new law will lead to "wholesale capture" of waqf properties were "wrong" and "misleading", and alleged that the petitioners suppressed provisions of the law and proceedings before the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) to present incomplete facts. The bench, hearing the matter for the second consecutive day, told Mehta to explain the stand on section 3C that says an officer above the rank of collector can decide a dispute about whether a waqf property is on government land, leading to the property no longer being a waqf. "A picture that was painted before us was that once the collector conducts an enquiry, property ceases to be waqf and after enquiry, the property will be taken away," the bench said. Clarifying the Centre's stand, Mehta said, "Possession will not and cannot be taken over except by procedure established under law. This was a deliberately misleading argument, and quite an alarming one, that manifestly this provision amounted to wholesale capture." The bench clarified, "According to you, the property continues to be waqf, possession continues, but they cannot alienate the property till its status is decided. It is status quo till rights are adjudicated by the competent authority." The law, which received presidential assent on April 5 after being passed by both the Houses of Parliament earlier, makes sweeping changes to the governance and recognition of Islamic charitable endowments, or waqfs. The Centre has defended the amendments as necessary to curb corruption, enhance transparency and ensure better regulatory oversight. But several political parties, religious organisations and civil society groups have mounted a strong push back, calling the law a direct infringement on religious autonomy and an unconstitutional imposition on the Muslim community. The petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenge the law on many grounds, alleging it undermines the fundamental rights of Muslims and erodes age-old waqf traditions. Petitioners have particularly targeted provisions such as the removal of "waqf by user" - a principle that historically allowed recognition of religious endowments created through usage or oral tradition - and the invalidation of oral waqfs unless backed by formal deeds. These changes, critics say, jeopardise the status of mosques, graveyards and dargahs that have existed for centuries without written documentation. To be sure, the new law only does this prospectively, other than in cases where there is an existing dispute with the government. During the hearing, Mehta said that the inquiry by collector will only result in correction of revenue and waqf board records and this order will not be final till the waqf tribunal decides the matter. "This is subject to judicial review," Mehta said, adding, "It is absolutely wrong to say an order under section 3C is final. There is no denial of access to justice. Eviction can be only as per law. If it is found to be government property, we will have to file a suit claiming title over the land." The Centre also dealt with non-registration of waqf-by-user properties, and said, "A false narrative was created that we have been called upon to produce documents of waqf by user properties which are over 100 years old, or else the same will be captured en masse. This is misleading the entire nation. I will show, no papers are needed, only the accounts of past five years." He referred to the object of the law regarding waqfs since the 1923 Mussalman Wakf Act, which required waqf properties to be registered with the court. "By enacting this law, we are eradicating a menace prevalent since 1923," Mehta argued. In 1976, a committee constituted by Centre examined and found "deliberate concealing of waqf property" and "wilful failure for registration". "The effect of stay will lead to several anomalies. It will give a premium to unregistered waqf properties, legitimise unregistered waqf-by-user which is penalised under past laws, and create a legal regime by judicial intervention something which Parliament has consciously taken out." Mehta also rejected arguments that two crucial provisions in the act - section 3D (waqf to be void on a property declared as protected monument) and section 3E (prohibition on declaring lands of scheduled tribes as waqf) -- were not part of the original bill and were introduced at the time of voting. "This is part of JPC report. The original bill did not have section 3D. After JPC recommendation, it had to be placed and the amended bill was placed in Parliament," Mehta said. Even with regard to inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards and waqf council, the Centre said that the fundamental rights of Muslims under Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion and right to administer and manage properties) is not affected as the waqf boards perform secular functions. Further, it was asserted that in the council, a maximum of only two people will be non-Muslims. "This cannot be a ground to stay a law, as even if the court ultimately sets aside this provision, they will cease to function," he added. He pointed out an instance of a law passed by Andhra Pradesh in the context of Hindu temples where a board appointed by the state was given the right to appoint the 'mahant' of the temple. "There are challenges to Hindu Religious Endowment laws as they are too pervasive. Here, the waqf board appoints muttawali, who is only a manager of the waqf property and is distinct from spiritual or religious head, called the sajjadanashin or Imam," Mehta argued. The hearing will continue on Thursday....