‘Why should Waqf-by-user practice exist?’: Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain

NEW DELHI: As the Supreme Court raised concerns over some provisions in the recently passed Waqf Amendment Act, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain on Thursday questioned the basis of “Waqf-by-user” concept and and said that efforts must be made to “bring back” properties that were acquired on the basis of it.

“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,” Jain said.

He defended the provision in the Waqf Amendment Act, which disallows the concept of ‘waqf-by-user’ in land dispute cases and said that the Parliament has reiterated that they would bring back the government properties declared as Waqf property.

“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,” the lawyer said.

#WATCH | Delhi | Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain says, “When we filed a petition in the Supreme Court regarding the Waqf board, the Court asked us why we came directly to the Supreme Court and suggested that we should go to the High Courts, and we didn’t get any interim relief even… pic.twitter.com/jw2AfuWCvO

— ANI (@ANI) April 17, 2025

A ‘waqf by user’ refers to a property that is treated as waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes, even without formal documentation.

Raising objections to the Supreme Court’s willingness to interfere in the matter, the advocate said that the apex court couldn’t directly hear the issue under Article 32 since it would set a “wrong precedent”, given that when similar cases came before the top court, they were asked to approach the High Court.

“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,” Jain said.

He further suggested that all the cases (regarding the Waqf Amendment Act) should be taken to a single High Court, and a constitutional bench be formed to hear them within six months. (ANI)