The Supreme Court is hearing petitions against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, raising serious concerns about religious rights and property claims. Heated courtroom exchanges revealed deep constitutional and historical issues.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today continued hearing several petitions that are challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and the court has decided to carry on with the hearing tomorrow as well at 2 PM.
The case is being heard by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan. During the proceedings, the Bench expressed concern about ongoing unrest.
CJI remarked,
“One thing is very disturbing is the violence that is taking place. If the matter is pending here it should not happen..”
On behalf of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued against the amendments. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union Government.
Kapil Sibal began his arguments by saying that the changes brought by the new law interfere with important religious practices in Islam. He pointed to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which give people the right to practice and manage their religion freely.
He submitted,
“What is sought through Parliamentary legislation is to interfere with essential and integral part of faith.”
He explained that Article 26 cannot be used to destroy essential religious practices under the excuse of “in accordance with law.”
Sibal then pointed out several problematic parts of the new law:
- Section 3(r) and the proviso to Section 3: These say that properties used as waqf will remain waqf unless someone disputes it or the government declares it as its own land.
- Section 3(A)(2): It says that a waqf created for one’s own family (waqf-alal-aulad) cannot deny women their right to inheritance.
- Section 3(C): This provision says that any government property that has been declared as waqf earlier will no longer be considered waqf once this law comes into effect.
Sibal said there is no deadline for making such declarations and warned that,
“You have identified an officer who is the officer of the government. This is per se unconstitutional.”
He also criticized the part that allows protected monuments or waqf land to be made void.
ALSO READ: Waqf Amendment Act : LIVE UPDATES from Supreme Court
In response, CJI clarified,
“If it’s declared as waqf before it was declared an ancient monument, it will remain waqf. You should not be objecting unless after it’s declared as protected, it cannot be declared as waqf.”
He assured that important heritage sites like Jama Masjid would remain protected.
CJI added that the Parliament has also made inheritance laws for Hindus, so these rules are not targeting only one community. He reminded that Article 26 applies to all religions.
Sibal replied,
“Inheritance in Islam happens after death. They are interfering before that.”
Sibal then claimed that the government, through this amendment, is taking over waqf properties by simply appointing people of its choice, ignoring the need for proper Muslim representation. He noted that under the Waqf Act of 1995, Sections 9 and 14 required such representation.
He also raised alarm about Section 36, which abolishes “waqf-by-user” — a long-practiced religious custom.
Sibal argued,
“Suppose it’s my own property, and I want to use it. I don’t want to register. Waqf by user is abolished,”
At this point, CJI asked,
“What is the problem with registration?”
Sibal responded that many old waqf properties do not have written records.
“If a waqf is created 3000 years ago, they will ask for deed.”
He also referred to Section 7A, saying it could take up to 20 years to prove a waqf claim.
CJI asked if a court could review the Collector’s decision, and Sibal said the law doesn’t say anything about that.
However, SG Mehta disagreed, stating that court review is allowed. Sibal objected to the new two-year time limit under Section 61, arguing that this would block many valid claims on unregistered waqf lands.
CJI then remarked,
“We are told Delhi High Court is built on waqf land. We are not saying all waqf by user is wrong, but there is genuine concern.”
He added that many old religious sites like Jama Masjid were built based on long usage.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also criticized the new definition under Section 3(r), saying it wrongly changes who is considered a practicing Muslim. He warned it could take away people’s fundamental rights for five years.
He said,
“Are they going to tell me, Mr Ahmadi, you don’t practice five times a day?”
-and called the clause too vague.
When SG Mehta started his arguments, he said the amendments were made after a lot of discussion. He explained that a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) had held 38 meetings, visited many cities, and received 98.2 lakh suggestions from people. Mehta also said that registration of waqf properties was always needed.
“Even under the 1995 Act, waqf by user had to be registered. Mr Sibal says mutawalli will go to jail — he’s going to jail since 1995 if registration isn’t done,”
CJI expressed doubt about old mosques and asked,
“You require them to produce a sale deed? It’s impossible,”
to which Mehta replied,
“Why didn’t they register before?”
Justice Viswanathan asked what would happen if a Collector claimed that a waqf property was actually government land. Mehta said the Collector is just a revenue officer and disputes can still go to court.
CJI warned,
“If you are going to denotify waqf-by-user properties, it will be an issue.”
He also firmly stated,
“The legislature cannot declare any judgment or decree of court as void. You can remove the basis of law but you cannot declare any judgment as not binding.”
Mehta admitted,
“I don’t know why those words have come. Ignore that part.”
He also added that some Muslims now prefer to avoid the Waqf Board and are making private trusts instead.
CJI pointed out,
“There are issues concerning the past waqf by user.”
Mehta then rejected the argument that the government was taking full control, saying that Section 9 of the old Act (1995) already allowed the Central Government to nominate members.
As Mehta began reading the Board’s composition, CJI interrupted and asked sharply,
“Mr Mehta, are you saying that from now on you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly!”
CJI noted,
“So as per the Act, 8 members are Muslims. 2 judges may not be Muslims. Then the rest are non-Muslims.”
SG Mehta replied sarcastically,
“Then this bench also cannot hear the case.”
CJI shot back,
“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?”
CJI then asked,
“Are you ready to make a statement before the Court… that maximum two apart from the two ex officio members will be non-Muslims?”
SG responded,
“I can put it on affidavit.”
CJI then highlighted the core concern,
“When a public trust is declared to be a waqf 100 or 200 years ago… suddenly you say it is being taken over by the Waqf Board and declared otherwise.”
SG Mehta replied,
“That is not correct. What it means is that if you have a waqf and can make a trust instead… you can do it… this is an enabling provision.”
The Supreme Court will continue the hearing on this matter tomorrow at 2 PM.
BACKGROUND
The Central Government had officially announced that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act 14 of 2025) would become active from April 8, 2025. This was done through a notification issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, which clearly stated:
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (14 of 2025), the Central Government hereby appoints the 8th day of April, 2025 as the date on which the provisions of the said Act shall come into force.”
This step came after the Lok Sabha passed the Bill on April 3, 2025, after a long debate lasting more than 12 hours. The voting result was declared at 1:55 AM, with 288 Members of Parliament voting in favour and 232 voting against the Bill. The Bill was later passed in the Rajya Sabha as well and got President Droupadi Murmu’s approval, making it law.
During the final discussion before the vote, Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju made some bold statements. He said that the word ‘secular’ was being wrongly used and explained that India is truly secular, unlike Pakistan or Bangladesh, because the majority in India is secular. He said this should be acknowledged openly.
Rijiju also strongly denied the claim that the government is trying to divide the Muslim community. Instead, he argued that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill aims to unite all Muslim sects. He further clarified:
“The provisions of the Waqf Board have nothing to do with the management of any mosque, temple, or religious site. It is simply a matter of property management. However, Waqf properties are managed by the Waqf Board and the Mutawalli. If someone fails to understand this basic distinction or deliberately chooses not to, then I have no solution for that.”
One of the key changes brought by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is the application of the Limitation Act, 1963. This is meant to help resolve long-pending disputes faster.
Another major change is about who handles waqf-related land disputes. Earlier, these were handled by lower authorities, but now, based on the Joint Parliamentary Committee’s (JPC) recommendations, such disputes will go to a higher authority appointed by the state government.
Several individuals and organizations have gone to the Supreme Court to challenge the law, saying it is unconstitutional and affects religious rights. Some of the well-known petitioners include:
- Mohd. Jawed – Member of Parliament, Indian National Congress
- Asaduddin Owaisi – MP and President, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM)
- Amanatullah Khan – MLA, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)
- Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) – Civil rights NGO
- Maulana Arshad Madani – Head of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind
- Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema – Prominent Muslim organisation from Kerala
- Anjum Kadari – Individual petitioner
These petitioners argue that the new law violates fundamental religious rights, especially those related to property ownership and management under Islamic customs.
CASE TITLE:
ASADUDDIN OWAISI v. UNION OF INDIA
W.P.(C) No. 269/2025 and others.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Waqf
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
