New Delhi, Apr 16 (Reporter) The Supreme Court today continued its intense hearing on the constitutional challenge to the Waqf Amendment Bill, raising sharp questions over religious inclusivity, historical reinterpretations, and the scope of Waqf board powers. The hearing will resume tomorrow, but not before a stormy exchange unfolded in the courtroom between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna. SG Mehta defended the amendment, stating, "The bill wasn’t brought overnight. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) was formed, all stakeholders were heard, and the report is in the public domain." He highlighted the amendment's intention to make Waqf boards more inclusive, pointing out that two members on the board will mandatorily be women. However, Justice Sanjay Kumar raised a critical query: “Why must the members under Clause (c) be specifically Muslims?” Mehta responded, “Because there is a choice.” But Justice Kumar insisted, “We have to go by the wording. If only Clause (c) mentions Muslim members, the rest can be non-Muslims too.” The bench also grilled the SG on the retrospective impact of the amendment. CJI questioned, “Where a public trust was declared as Waqf 100 or 200 years ago, how can the board now claim it? You cannot rewrite the past!” SG Mehta tried to clarify: “If a Muslim creates a trust today, it doesn't necessarily have to be a Waqf. There’s a five-judge judgment from Hyderabad Nizam's era allowing such trusts.” To this, the CJI shot back, “Then you are undoing that judgment too.” A pivotal moment came when the CJI provocatively asked, “Mr Mehta, are you willing to say that from now on, Muslims can also be members of Hindu endowment boards?” SG Mehta deflected but offered to file an affidavit stating that apart from two ex-officio members, only two others would be Muslims. Justice Khanna reacted strongly to a comment by SG comparing judges with religious representatives: “When we sit here, we lose our religion. Both sides are equal to us. Don’t compare this to judges.” Meanwhile, Justice Vishwanathan pointed out practical aspects: “There are issues like ingress/egress in mosques. So, naturally, some members must be able to visit and relate to the premises.” The Bench emphasised that JPC reports cannot override the actual wording of the Act, and insisted that the proviso in Clause (c) doesn’t restrict the other members from being non-Muslims. Finally, the CJI remarked on the broader implications: “When the constitutional validity of a law is pending before us, High Courts cannot decide it. Either we hear it ourselves or take all related cases here.” Both SG Mehta and Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi (appearing for petitioners) urged the SC to hear the matter directly and resolve it in a time-bound manner. “We will file our replies in two weeks and are ready for day-to-day hearings,” SG Mehta assured. The Court posted the matter to be heard tomorrow at 2 pm...////...