List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih in the case of IN RE THE WAQF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025 refused to stay provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 which abolished the concept of 'Waqf by user' and upheld mandatory registration requirements for all Waqf properties. 

What was the Background of IN RE THE WAQF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025 Case? 

• The petition challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, particularly the deletion of provisions recognizing 'Waqf by user'. 

Historical Context of Waqf Registration: 

• Right from the Waqf Act of 1923, there was a consistent requirement for registration of Waqfs. 
• The original Waqf Act of 1995 contained Section 3(r)(i) which recognized the concept of "Waqf by user." 
• "Waqf by user" allowed recognition of properties as Waqf through long, consistent public use for religious purposes, without formal dedication deeds. 

The 2025 Amendment Changes: 

• The 2025 amendment deleted Section 3(r)(i) of the original Waqf Act of 1995. 
• New amendments to Section 36 mandated registration of every Waqf and prescribed that no Waqf shall be created without execution of a Waqf deed. 
• The amendment provided a 6-month period for registration of existing unregistered Waqfs. 

Petitioners' Contentions: 

• Petitioners argued that deletion of "Waqf by user" provision would prejudicially affect several age-old Waqf properties without formal registration deeds. 
• They contended that many old Waqfs would not have deeds available and the new requirements were arbitrary and discriminatory. 
• They claimed that government would grab lands previously vested in Waqfs. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that registration requirements existed consistently since 1923, stating: "If Mutawallis for a period of 102 years could not get the waqf registered, as required under the earlier provisions, they cannot claim that they be allowed to continue with the waqf even if they are not registered." 
• The Court recognized the legislature's concern about misuse of Waqf properties and government land encroachment, noting that abolishing "Waqf by User" concept cannot be considered arbitrary when aimed at preventing such misuse. 
• The Court clarified that the amendments would apply prospectively, not retrospectively, and found the 6-month registration period adequate with provisions for extensions upon showing sufficient cause. 
• The Court referenced the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Andhra Pradesh Waqf Board (2025) Case, where government lands were wrongly notified as Waqfs, supporting the legislature's concerns about misuse. 

What is Waqf? 

About: 

• Waqf is an Islamic endowment of property for religious or charitable purposes. 
• Properties dedicated as Waqf are meant to be held in perpetuity for the benefit of the community. 
• Traditionally, Waqfs could be created through formal deeds or through long-standing usage for religious purposes. 

Waqf by User Concept: 

• "Waqf by user" was a legal concept that recognized properties as Waqf based on continuous public use for religious or charitable purposes. 
• This concept did not require formal documentation or registration deeds. 
• It allowed recognition of ancient religious properties that may have lacked formal establishment documents. 

Registration Requirements: 

• Since 1923, various Waqf Acts have mandated registration of Waqf properties. 
• The requirement aimed to maintain proper records and prevent disputes over property ownership. 
• Mutawallis (administrators of Waqf properties) were responsible for ensuring registration compliance. 

What is Waqf Amendment Act, 2025? 

Key Provisions: The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 introduced several significant changes: 

Abolition of "Waqf by User": 

• Deleted Section 3(r)(i) of the original Waqf Act of 1995. 
• Eliminated the concept of recognizing Waqfs through usage alone. 
• Required formal documentation for all Waqf properties. 

Mandatory Registration and Documentation: 

• Amended Section 36 to mandate registration of every Waqf. 
• Prescribed that no Waqf shall be created without execution of a Waqf deed. 
• Provided 6-month grace period for existing unregistered Waqfs. 

Purpose of the Amendment:  

The amendment aimed to: 

• Prevent misuse and encroachment of government properties. 
• Ensure proper documentation and accountability. 
• Strengthen the legal framework governing Waqf properties. 
• Address concerns about fraudulent claims over public lands. 

Source: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 

Why in News? 

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of Mohd. Hassan v. UT of J&K & Ors. (2025) delivered a significant judgment affirming the fundamental right to change one's name in educational certificates. 

•  Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed the petition and directed the educational board to reconsider the petitioner's request for name change from "Raj Wali" to "Mohd Hassan" in his educational qualification certificates. 

What was the Background of Mohd. Hassan v. UT of J&K & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The petitioner's original name was Raj Wali, as recorded in his educational certificates including High School and intermediate certificates issued in 2016. 
  The petitioner was aggrieved by his name as friends made fun of it, but during childhood, his parents were unwilling to change it. 
• After completing graduation, the petitioner initiated the legal process to change his name from Raj Wali to Mohd Hassan. 
• He obtained a Gazette notification dated 15th April 2023 from the Department of Publication, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, officially declaring his name change. 
• Subsequently, his name was changed in other official documents including Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID Card, Driving License, Passport, and Domicile Certificate. 
• The petitioner applied to the J&K Board of School Education for name change in his educational certificates with all relevant documents. 
• The Board rejected his application vide Order No. F(Certs-B) JD/2024 dated 24th December 2024, citing that the request was beyond the mandate of the Correction Committee and that he had approached after the prescribed three-year period. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Constitutional Rights: The Court emphasized that the right to change name is a facet of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. 
• Identity and Expression: The Court observed that "identity is an amalgam of various internal and external including acquired characteristics of an individual and name can be regarded as one of the foremost indicators of identity." 
• Legal Precedent: The Court extensively relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Jigya Yadav (Minor) v. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. (2021), which established that individuals must have complete control over their names. 
• Board Regulations Interpretation: The Court held that Notification dated 6th February 1995 should be interpreted in a manner that does not infringe fundamental rights, stating that while reasonable restrictions on frequent name changes are permissible, a blanket ban is not legally sustainable. 
• Distinction Between Correction and Change: The Court clarified the difference between "correction" (rectification of typographical errors with a three-year limitation) and "change" (wholesale change of particulars without time limitation). 
• Statutory Documents: The Court directed that statutory documents like Aadhar card, PAN card, and Passport should be considered for name changes in educational certificates. 

What is the Right to Change Name? 

Constitutional Foundation: 

• The right to change name is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). 
• It also falls under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). 
• Identity expression is a protected element of freedom of expression under the Constitution. 

Legal Recognition: 

• Name is considered an expression of individuality, identity, and uniqueness. 
• It is the foundation on which an individual moves around in civil society. 
• In a democracy, free expression of one's name is a facet of individual right. 

Supreme Court Guidelines in Jigya Yadav Case: 

• Individuals must have complete control over their names at all times. 
• Change in identity must go through proper legal steps including state recognition. 
• Educational boards must consider requests based on public documents with legal presumption.