The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a group of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, after hearing arguments over three days. The case was heard by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions that challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and sought an interim stay on its implementation.
The case was heard over three days by a Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
The Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Act on April 3, and the Rajya Sabha cleared it on April 4. It received Presidential assent on April 5.
This Amendment Act seeks to change the 1995 Waqf Act, which governs Muslim religious and charitable properties known as waqf.
Several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the new law. Notable petitioners included Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi. They argued that the changes were discriminatory against Muslims and interfered with their constitutional right to manage religious affairs under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Today’s Hearing
At the heart of the challenge is the removal of the concept of ‘waqf by user’. Petitioners claim that:
“This omission would deprive historical mosques, graveyards and charitable properties, many of which have existed for centuries without formal waqf deeds, of their religious character.”
They also objected to the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, arguing that it interferes with the community’s internal religious management.
In a written reply to the Court, the Union Government said that the Amendment was necessary to prevent misuse of the Waqf Act. It highlighted that:
“After the previous amendment to the Waqf Act in 2013, there was a 116 per cent rise in ‘auqaf area’.”
It argued that people were misusing the concept of waqf to claim private and public land:
“Individuals or organisations used to claim private lands and government lands as waqf which not only lead to deprivation of valuable property rights of individual citizens but similarly unauthorized claims over public properties.”
The Centre clarified that removing “waqf by user” from the law:
“Does not curtail the right to dedicate property to God, but merely regulates the form of dedication in keeping with statutory requirements.”
On the inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards, the government stated:
“The changes in the composition of these bodies do not impair the Muslim community’s rights under Article 26.”
“The addition of non-Muslim members are in a ‘microscopic minority’ in the Council and Boards and their presence is meant to give inclusivity to the bodies.”
On April 17, the Central Government assured the Court that it would not enforce key provisions of the Act for now. The Court recorded this and decided not to grant an express stay at that time.
ALSO READ: Waqf Amendment Act | “Undoing ‘Waqf by User’ Will Create Problems”: Supreme Court
Earlier, former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna had recused himself from the matter, and it was assigned to the current Bench led by CJI BR Gavai.
During the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Act by stating:
“Though waqf is an Islamic concept, it is not an essential part of Islam and waqf boards discharge secular functions. Hence, the inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards is permissible.”
He addressed comparisons made between waqf boards and Hindu endowment boards:
“Hindu endowment deals with only religious activity whereas waqf deals with secular activities. Hindu endowment activities are very pervasive. It is under serious challenge. Hindu endowment commissioner can go inside temple. Pujari is decided by the State government. Waqf board do not touch upon religious activity at all.”
On the nature of the petitions, Mehta stated:
“Many of the petitions before the Court are in the nature of public interest litigation and are not filed by affected individuals.”
He added that:
“There were repeated deliberations with the JPC. They took various inputs from different Muslim bodies. Thereafter, a voluminous report was submitted where suggestions were accepted or rejected with reasons. Then it was passed with unprecedented debate.”
On the power of revenue officials to decide land disputes under the amended Act, Mehta clarified:
“The revenue authorities decide whether it is government land or not. But it is only for the purpose of revenue records. They cannot decide on the title. It is not final. Initial Bill said that the collector will decide. The objection raised was collector will be a judge in his own case. So it was suggested by JPC that let somebody else, apart from the collector, be the designated officer. The only consequence of the exercise undertaken by the officer under Section 3C will be limited to correction of revenue records and board records. I have said this on affidavit. But nobody brought this to notice.”
Regarding the registration of waqf properties, he stated:
“Documents and particulars need to be furnished only as far as possible.”
He also emphasized:
“Waqf by user is not a fundamental right and was recognised by a statute. Judgment said if a right is conferred by statute. Right can always be taken away by a statute.”
On the five-year practice condition to create a waqf, Mehta argued:
“Creating a waqf is different than donating to a waqf. This is why 5 years practice requirement for Muslims.. so that waqf is not used for defrauding someone. So suppose I am a Hindu and I want to donate for waqf, then donation can be made to a waqf. How can a non-Muslim be allowed to create a waqf. He can always donate to a waqf.”
He further claimed:
“Yes there are pleas by tribal organisations saying that they are being victimised and that their lands are being grabbed as waqf. It is not atrociously unconstitutional.”
Referring to Islamic law, Mehta noted:
“If you see the Shariah Act, if a Muslim wants to take benefit of personal law application then also a declaration as a Muslim is needed. Same thing is here. Same declaration is being sought.”
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar cited the Qur’an and Mulla’s book to explain that:
“A person can only dedicate a property as waqf if it is his own property.”
He said:
“The board was also given an adjudicatory power to declare anything as waqf and person had to go to tribunal to get this rectified. And if not objected then it became final. This was omitted (in the new law) to take away adjudicatory power of board and has now been left only with the tribunal.”
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi raised concerns over inconsistency between different laws:
“The Places of Worship Act is frozen in 1991 whereas Waqf by user can continue beyond hundreds of years. How fair is this? Something which arises due to adverse possession goes beyond it. Then they say state laws are comparable to a central legislation.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan suggested that the issue may need a larger Bench:
“When they say there is an article 25 claim and that waqf is an essential religious practice, that very issue is referred to 9 judges. Shirur mutt (judgment) is referred and that question has to be decided first that whether it’s an essential religious practice or not.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
