The Centre argued that the law, being passed by Parliament, holds constitutional value and cannot be temporarily halted or stayed by the court during the hearing process.
NEW DELHI: The central government has informed the Supreme Court that it will strongly oppose any stay—whether full or partial—on the implementation of the new Waqf laws while the case is still being heard.
This statement was made by the government on Friday during a Supreme Court hearing.
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is scheduled to hear the matter on May 5 for consideration of interim orders.
In a detailed 1,332-page preliminary counter affidavit, the Centre has strongly defended the recent amendments to the Waqf Act, asserting that they are lawful and do not infringe upon religious freedoms.
The affidavit, filed by Shersha C Shaik Mohiddin, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Minority Affairs, said, “Shockingly, after 2013, there was an addition of over 20 lakh hectares in waqf land.”
Highlighting the historical context, it stated, “Right before even Mughal era, pre-independence era and post-independence era, the total of waqfs created was 18,29,163.896 acres of land in India.”
Raising concerns over earlier legal provisions, the government alleged “reported misuse” of waqf laws to “encroach upon private and government properties.”
The Centre emphasized the constitutional presumption in favour of laws enacted by Parliament, stating, “It is a settled position in law that constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision, either directly or indirectly, and will decide the matter finally. There is a presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws made by Parliament.”
The Centre argued that the law, being passed by Parliament, holds constitutional value and cannot be temporarily halted or stayed by the court during the hearing process.
In its submission, the government firmly said, “There is a presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws made by Parliament and an interim stay by the court is against the principle of balance of powers.”
The Centre further explained that, in legal matters like this, courts are not allowed to stop legal provisions from being implemented—either directly or indirectly.
As per the government’s view, this is a “settled position in law that courts do not have authority to stay statutory provisions, either directly or indirectly.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is hearing several petitions that are challenging the recently amended Waqf laws. The new rules include controversial clauses such as making it mandatory for non-Muslim members to be included in both the Central Waqf Council and various state-level Waqf boards.
Another clause under dispute says that only Muslims who have been practicing the religion for at least five years are allowed to donate to Waqf institutions.
It cautioned against any interim relief, asserting, “While this court would examine these challenges when the cases are heard, a blanket stay without being aware of the adverse consequences of such an order in a generality of cases were the petitions to be unsuccessful would, it is submitted, be uncalled for, especially in the context of the presumption of validity of such laws.”
Rejecting the basis of the petitions, the affidavit stated, “The pleas challenging the Act proceeded on false premise that amendments take away fundamental rights of religious freedom.”
The government clarified that judicial review is permissible under Article 32, but only on grounds of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights.
The Centre also highlighted that the amendments followed “a very comprehensive, in-depth and analytical study by a parliamentary panel having members from major political parties.” It added, “Parliament has acted within its domain to ensure that religious endowments like waqf are managed in a manner that upholds the trust reposed in them by the faithful and the society at large, without trespassing on religious autonomy.”
Terming the law “a valid and lawful exercise of legislative power,” the government asserted that replacing legislation passed by Parliament is “impermissible.”
Earlier, on April 17, the government had assured the Supreme Court that it would not denotify any waqf property, including those classified as “waqf by user”, and would also refrain from making any appointments to the Central Waqf Council or state waqf boards until May 5.
The petitioners have argued that these new rules violate several fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of religion, equality, and the right to manage religious affairs.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court To Hear Challenges Against Waqf Law 2025 Today (April 16)
They claim that the changes in the law interfere with the Muslim community’s autonomy in managing Waqf properties and religious affairs, and that imposing such rules is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing the matter in the coming days.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
