Today, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a three-point interim order in the Waqf dispute.

After postponing its decision yesterday to give the Center time to address three crucial queries posed by the bench, the Supreme Court may now issue a three-point interim order in the Waqf matter. A three-judge panel consisting of Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, as well as Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna, will begin hearing the case again at 2:00 PM.

The bench chose to hear the arguments themselves after first considering sending the case to a higher court. Additionally, the court made it clear that it would not consider any arguments in favor of a stay of the recently passed legislation.

During the hearing on Wednesday, CJI stated, “We either decide or we relegate you to one High Court, or we call pending petitions from High Courts and decide it.”

In the Waqf (Amendment) Act hearing, the petitioners are being represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rajeev Dhawan, and CU Singh. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, speaking on behalf of the Center, maintained the law’s constitutionality by arguing that it was enacted with approval by both Houses of Parliament and the President.

The 3-point interim order includes:

1. During the case hearing, properties that have already been deemed waqfs by the courts, either through a waqf-by-user or a deed, should not be de-notified. In a process known as waqf-by-user, a property is recognized as waqf based on its continuous, long-term usage for these purposes, even in the absence of a written declaration from the landowner.

Although there is abuse in Waqf-by-user cases, the court pointed out that those legitimate demands must be safeguarded.

“How would the user register such waqfs? What records will they possess? It will cause things to be undone. Indeed, some misuse occurs. However, there are also real ones. I have also read the rulings of the Privy Council. The user’s waqf is recognized. It will be an issue if you reverse it. A judgment, order, or decree cannot be declared null and void by legislation. The bench said, “You can only take the basis.

2. While the case is still pending, the revised clause that prohibits a property from being recognized as Waqf during a district collector’s investigation into its status as government land should not be enforced.

“You cannot rewrite the past,” the supreme court observed, referring to historical trusts designated as Waqf properties.

3. With the exception of ex-officio members, all members of the central waqf council and waqf boards must be Muslims.

“Are you saying that from now on you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards?” the court said in response to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s argument that many Muslims do not want to be regulated by the Waqf Act. Openly state it.

Ten applications have been submitted to the Supreme Court, including ones from RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, AAP’s Amanatullah Khan, and AIMIM chairman Asaduddin Owaisi. Arshad Madani, Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, and other people are among the other petitioners. Mahua Moitra of the TMC and Zia-ur-Rahman Barq of the SP are anticipated to add more petitions shortly.

The petitioners contend that the amendment violates constitutionally protected property and religious rights, especially those of the Muslim minority. They have asked the court to consider how the statute affects the autonomy and management of Waqf properties.