The Supreme Court denied a petition to direct the enactment of a “universal code” for trusts, charity institutions, and religious endowments across all faiths and to repeal “special” legislation controlling waqfs and waqf properties on Wednesday, April 13, 2022.
The petitioner, counsel Aswini Kumar Upadhyay, could not submit an “abstract” case demanding the repeal of the Waqf Act of 1995, saying the law offered special advantages to Muslims and discriminated against Hindus and adherents of other faiths, according to a Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
“You have the right to question the law’s legality if you are harmed by it.” You can’t, however, question a law in the abstract… Has your property been seized as a result of the Waqf Act… Mr. Upadhyay, what is your problem?” Justice Chandrachud enquired.
Petitioner in Supreme Court claims interests of Hindus
The petitioner claims that “the interests of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, and other non-Islamic religious communities are involved in the matter, and the public, in general, is suffering as a result of conferring unbridled powers to Waqf Boards and granting special status to Waqf properties, and thus others are being discriminated before the law and denied equal protection of the law,” and that “the public, in general, is suffering due to conferment of unbridled powers “However, how are you harmed by the law?” Have you been evicted from your home? On the Bench, Justice Surya Kant inquired about Mr. Upadhyay’s trust property.
The Supreme court could not issue a mandamus to Parliament to adopt a “uniform statute,” according to Justice Chandrachud. “We must exercise extreme caution while hearing a PIL challenging a statute approved by the legislature… If the PIL is for the environment or education, we can consider it,” Justice Chandrachud told Mr. Upadhyay orally.
Mr. Upadhyay pleaded with the Supreme court to allow him to read a two-page summary of his petition. “Your petition has been read… “With you reading out a note, we don’t want this to be a publicity stunt,” Justice Chandrachud informed the petitioner-lawyer.
Mr. Upadhyay was requested to offer a straight answer to the court’s two questions: one, how can a court issue a mandamus to the legislature or Parliament to pass specific legislation; and two, how can a court issue a mandamus to the legislature or Parliament to enact a specific law. Second, why should the court hear an abstract petition that does not detail any specific violation of the Waqf Act?
Mr. Upadhyay promptly requested permission from the court to withdraw. He claimed that he should be allowed to go to the High Court. The Court permitted him to withdraw and seek any “legal remedies” he could find. “Supreme court has not expressed any opinions,” Justice Chandrachud noted.