NewKerala.com

Key Points

Vijay's political party TVK has filed a rejoinder against the Centre's reply on the Waqf Amendment Act 2025. The plea argues the law violates constitutional rights by deregistering unlisted Waqf properties. TVK claims the Centre misrepresented data on Waqf property growth post-2013. The Supreme Court will now examine the constitutional validity of the controversial law.

Key Points: Vijay's TVK Challenges Waqf Act 2025 in Supreme Court Rejoinder

  • TVK claims Centre's reply lacks material particulars
  • Challenges Waqf Act 2025 as unconstitutional
  • Alleges discriminatory impact on Muslim community
  • Follows earlier SC petition against the law
2 min read

Vijay's TVK files counter to Centre's reply in pleas against Waqf Act

Actor Vijay's party TVK files counter to Centre's reply, alleging Waqf Amendment Act 2025 violates constitutional rights.

"The consequence of non-registration, i.e. exclusion of Waqf by user, violates constitutional provisions – TVK Plea"

New Delhi, May 14

Actor Vijay's political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazagham (TVK) has filed a rejoinder application in response to the Central government's reply against a batch of pleas filed in the Supreme Court, all challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

In its application, TVK has alleged that the Centre's reply lacks material particulars, which could dissuade the Supreme Court from declaring the Waqf (Amendment) Act as unconstitutional.

Among other contentions, TVK has submitted that the Centre unnecessarily brought in the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act in response to an unprecedented increase in Waqf properties after the 2013 Amendments. As per TVK's plea, there is no 'problem' of an unprecedented increase in Waqf properties after the 2013 Amendments.

Moreover, TVK's pleas clarifies that it has not challenged the requirement of registration of Waqf properties per se.

"However, it is the consequence of non-registration, i.e. exclusion of Waqf by user and derecognition of unregistered Waqf lands which are in contention before this Hon'ble Court as being violative of relevant provisions of Part-III of the Constitution", the plea adds.

The application has been filed through Advocate Yash S. Vijay on behalf of TVK.

On April 13, Vijay's TVK filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025. Several petitions were filed in the apex court challenging the Act, contending that it was discriminatory towards the Muslim community and violated their fundamental rights.

The Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, on April 4 with 128 votes in favour and 95 against. The Lok Sabha had earlier cleared the Bill following a lengthy debate, with 288 members voting in favour and members voting in favour and 232 opposing it. President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Bill on April 5, making it a law.

The instant application has been filed through Advocate Yash S Vijay on behalf of TVK.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

Here are 6 diverse Indian perspective comments for the article:
R
Rajesh K.
Interesting move by Vijay's party. The Waqf Act amendments need careful scrutiny - land laws should be equal for all communities. Hope SC gives a balanced judgment that protects both religious rights and secular principles. 🤞
P
Priya M.
Why is an actor's political party getting involved in complex legal matters? Shouldn't they focus on grassroots issues first? Feels like publicity stunt before elections...
A
Arvind S.
The Waqf Board already controls more land than any govt entity except railways. More transparency needed in how these properties are managed. Good that someone is questioning the amendments.
S
Sunita R.
As a law student, I find the constitutional arguments fascinating. The derecognition clause does seem problematic. Hope SC examines whether it violates Article 14. This could be an important precedent!
K
Karthik V.
Whatever the legal merits, timing seems suspicious - right before elections. All parties playing vote bank politics with sensitive issues. When will we focus on development instead? 😒
M
Meena T.
Land laws should be uniform across all communities. Special provisions for any group create inequality. The 2013 amendments themselves needed review - glad someone is challenging the new changes too.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50