Today, On 16th April, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna clarified during the hearing that the Supreme Court is “not considering stay (of the Act)” at this stage. The bench will first examine the legal and constitutional issues before deciding on any interim relief.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court suggested a temporary halt on specific important aspects of the recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. This includes the incorporation of non-Muslims into the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards, the powers given to Collectors, and the regulations regarding the de-notification of properties that have been recognized as waqf by the courts.
A three-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan did not issue any orders today but will reconvene to hear the case again tomorrow.
Petitioners have raised serious concerns that the amended law interferes with essential religious practices protected under Article 26 of the Constitution.
At the outset of the hearing, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna set the tone for the proceedings by stating, Before anybody appeals, we will call out names. We cannot hear everybody.
The bench then outlined two key questions,“Whether we should entertain or send it to HC?” and “What are the points you intend to argue? Second question will decide the first issue also.”“Our interim order will balance equities. We will say that whichever properties were declared by court to be waqf will not be de-notified or be treated as non waqf, whether it is waqf by user or not. 2. Collector can continue with proceedings, but the provision will not be given effect to. 3. Regarding the board and council, ex officio members can be appointed. But the other members have to be Muslims,” the Court remarked.
During today’s proceedings, the Court inquired of the Central government about the possibility of including non-Hindus in the governing bodies of temples.
The Court questioned Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Central government.
“Mr. Mehta, are you saying that from now on you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly,”
SG Mehta responded that he could affirm on affidavit that no more than two members would be non-Muslims.
The Court noted that only 8 out of the 22 members of the Waqf Council are Muslims.
The Bench commented,
“So as per the Act, 8 members are Muslims. 2 judges may not be Muslims! Then the rest are non-Muslims,”
SG Mehta replied,
“Then this bench also cannot hear the case,”
The Court argued,
“What! When we sit over here, we lose our religion. For us, both sides are the same. How can you compare it with the judges? Why not have non-Muslims also in the advisory board of Hindu endowments then?”
The Bench pressed further,
“Are you ready to make a statement before the court that a maximum of 2, apart from the 2 ex officio members, will (only) be non-Muslims?”
SG Mehta assured,
“I can put it on affidavit,”
The hearing will continue tomorrow.
Also Read: Uttarakhand Waqf Board Moves Supreme Court to Support Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, argued before the Court that the law encroaches upon a fundamental aspect of their faith, thereby infringing on the right to manage religious affairs as guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution.
He said,
“Let me broadly address what the challenge is about. Through a parliamentary legislation what is sought to be done is to intervene in an essential and integral part of a faith. I refer to Article 26 and many provisions of the Act violates Article 26,”
He cited Section 3(r) of the Act regarding the definition of waqf.
Sibal asked,
“Please see Section 3R of the Unified Waqf Management Act. Please see the definition of waqf. Waqf means the permanent dedication by any person showing or demonstrating that he is practicing Islam for last 5 years ..of any movable or immovable property provided it does not have any contrivance. If I want to create a Waqf, I have to show I am practicing Islam from the last 5 years and how should the State decide whether and how I am a Muslim or not,”
He further questioned the extent of State involvement in inheritance matters.
He asked,
“Who is the state to tell us how inheritance will be in my religion?”
The CJI said,
“But in Hindus it does happen. So parliament has enacted a law for Muslims.. may be not like of the Hindus.. Article 26 will not bar enactment of law in this case. Article 26 is universal and it is secular in the fashion that it applies to all,”
Sibal responded,
“Inheritance in Islam is after death and they are intervening before that,”
He asked,
“Further, if the government identifies or declares a property, it is not wakf. How can that be at all?”
He also raised concerns regarding the role of the Collector in determining whether a property qualifies as a waqf in case of disputes.
Sibal pointed out,
“A collector is the officer designated to decide whether a property is waqf or not if there is dispute. This person is a part of the government and is thus a judge in his own cause. This is per se unconstitutional. This also says that property will not be a waqf till the officer decides so,”
He then emphasized that the law now permits non-Muslims to serve on Waqf Boards and Councils.
He contended,
“Now the Waqf Council and Boards. Only Muslims had been part of such boards. Now even Hindus can be a part. This is direct usurpation of fundamental rights by parliamentary enactment,”
Justice Viswanathan said,
“Wordings of Article 26 regarding administering etc cannot be confused with essential religious practices,”
Sibal highlighted the relevant provision, noting that out of the 22 members in the Central Waqf Council, only 8 would be Muslims.
He stated,
“It says excluding ex officio members..2 is the minimum. All of them have to be Muslim as per Article 26 and here (under the new law), only 10 out of 22 are Muslims. Here even one is too many,”
Justice PV Sanjay Kumar said,
“So 8 are Muslims here,”
Sibal responded,
“Yes correct. This is complete takeover through nomination. Please see the 1995 act. It had all Muslims,”
He also objected to the requirement of a waqf deed for creating a waqf.
Sibal pointed out,
“On and from the commencement of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, no waqf shall be created without execution of a waqf deed,”
The CJI asked,
“What’s the problem?”
Sibal asked,
“There is a concept of waqf by user. Suppose I have a property and I want an orphanage there, what is the problem with that? Why should I have to register?”
The CJI said,
“If you register the waqf, the registration will help,”
Sibal replied,
“But waqf by user is abolished!! This is recognised by Ayodhya judgment,”
Justice Viswanathan remarked,
“Dedicate it to almighty.. is waqf. The section says to avoid claims and bogus claims have a waqf deed,”
Sibal responded,
“Not that simple. Waqfs are created hundreds of years ago. They will ask for waqf deed for 300-year-old property. That is the problem,”
The Bench then inquired about the role of the Collector in this context.
The Court asked,
“They say the collector will decide if there is dispute. Is it amenable to tribunal?”
Sibal responded,
“Not at all,”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered this argument.
SG Mehta stated,
“The section clearly says so,”
Sibal further noted,
“Limitation was not there in the 1995 Act.”
CJI Khanna remarked,
“But the Government can impose limitation. We cannot say that it is unconstitutional if limitation is imposed,”
Sibal explained,
“But if they say a suit not filed within two years… Here many are waqf by users, and they will get claims by adverse possession, legitimizing encroachers,”
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, also representing the petitioners, asserted that the law infringes on the rights of Muslims to practice their religion.
He stated,
“The basis of the constitutional challenge is that it violates our right to practice religion, and charity is an essential religious practice of Islam. Earlier, even the CEO had to be Muslim, but that is no longer the case,”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that four out of eight lakh waqfs are waqf by user.
He said,
“4 out of 8 lakhs are waqf by user. Imagine this now,”
CJI Khanna added,
“When we were in the Delhi High Court, we were told that the land is waqf land!! Don’t misunderstand us; we are not saying all waqf by user is wrongly registered,”
Singhvi contended,
“We have heard that Parliament is also on waqf land… We are saying you cannot throw a baby out with the bathwater. The question is, have you removed the basis of the Ayodhya judgment?”
He noted that the requirement of five years of practicing Islam to qualify for dedicating property as waqf could have significant implications.
He said,
“This is an aspect of contrivance where you have to make the person visit the government continuously and prove how they have practiced Islam for the last five years. This has all-India ramifications,”
The CJI proposed whether the matter could be referred to one of the High Courts.
He suggested,
“We can even direct one High Court to hear this. We will benefit from the High Court judgment. We are not saying there is any bar on us,”
Singhvi added that the petitioners are seeking a stay on certain provisions of the Act.
He stated,
“Some of these pernicious provisions have come into force immediately. We are seeking a stay on some of this, not the entire Act,”
Senior Advocate CU Singh argued that the essential religious aspects do not need to be examined, as the law violates Article 26 regardless.
He submitted,
“Please see Article 26. I am not on essential religious feature argument. It is not needed at all. It says freedom to manage religious affairs subject to public order,”
He explained that the new law would empower the Collector to intervene.
Singh explained,
“It has been held in the Daragh committee, Shirur Mutt that it bars state intervention except public order, morality, etc. See section 3(c). Once a dispute arises, it ceases to be waqf! Suppose a land has been a waqf for 300 years. Now, if anyone simply claims it is government land, the collector can take 50 years to decide, and it will not be a waqf until then,”
A Kashmiri Pandit lawyer also opposed the Waqf law.
He stated,
“I come from Kashmir. I am a Kashmiri Pandit. We have a temple there. Suppose the majority Muslims come and say that it is our land, is it justified? The same thing is happening here. Now the Collector says, ‘I will decide, and I am all mighty,’
Senior Advocates P Wilson and Huzefa Ahmadi also expressed their opposition to the provision requiring five years of practicing Islam to establish a waqf.
Wilson said,
“Through this entire enactment, they want a provision period of 5 years for a person to prove that he is a Muslim,”
Ahmadi submitted,
“The expression used is ‘practicing Islam for 5 years.’ If it’s essential religious practice, it effectively suspends fundamental rights for 5 years. So will I be told that ‘Mr. Ahmadi, you don’t pray 5 times a day, which is why you are not Muslim’? There is vagueness,”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, defended the law.
He emphasized,
“You are dealing with legislation. There was a joint parliamentary committee. There were 38 sittings, and it visited many areas… it examined 98.2 lakh memorandums. Then it went to both houses and was passed into law,”
The Bench then questioned him regarding the issues surrounding the deletion of ‘waqf by user’ and the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Councils and Boards.
The CJI asked,
“Are you saying that waqf by user, established by the Supreme Court judgment, and that there is no dispute, is now void?”
The SG replied,
“No, that is not the correct statutory scheme. I am a Hindu, and suppose I create a trust… Here, waqf is dedicated to almighty Allah…”
Also Read: LEGAL EXPLAINER| Waqf & The Waqf Amendment Bill 2024: Key Legal Changes & Impact
Several individuals, political leaders, and organisations have moved the court to challenge the Waqf Amendment Act. Among the petitioners are AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MP Md Jawed, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and other prominent figures.
Various groups such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, and the Association for Protection of Civil Rights are also part of the challenge.
Political parties including the DMK, Indian Union Muslim League, YSR Congress Party, and the Communist Party of India have extended their support to the petitions.
Additionally, Delhi MLA Amanatullah Khan, SP MP Zia Ur Rehman, the Imam of Bengaluru’s Jama Masjid, and Tamil actor and TVK President Vijay have also approached the court.
On the other hand, the States of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, Assam, Uttarakhand, and Chhattisgarh have filed applications to support the Waqf Amendment Act. The Central Government has submitted a caveat, requesting the court to hear its side before issuing any interim orders.
The Waqf Amendment Bill was passed after a 12-hour-long debate, securing 288 votes in favor and 232 against.
On August 8, 2024, two significant legislative proposals, namely the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, and the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, 2024, were introduced in the Lok Sabha. These bills aim to enhance the efficiency of Waqf Board operations and ensure better management of Waqf properties across India.
President Droupadi Murmu granted her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was previously passed by Parliament amid intense debates in both Houses. Multiple petitions have already been filed in the apex court contesting the bill’s validity.
This amendment introduces significant reforms to the management and administration of waqf properties in India.
The Waqf Act, originally enacted in 1995, governs the administration of Muslim charitable endowments (Waqf properties) in India.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Union of India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
