The Supreme Court continued hearing the constitutional challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, securing key interim assurances from the Union government.
NEW DELHI: On the second day of hearings on the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna along with Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, granted the Union government seven days to file its response to the nearly 100 petitions challenging the controversial law.
While the Court refrained from issuing an interim stay on the Act, it recorded the government’s assurance that
no new appointments would be made to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards until the next hearing.
The Court also directed that
the status of properties recognised as waqf by user would remain unchanged in the interim, aiming to preserve the rights of the parties during the pendency of the case.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
A series of writ petitions have been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging various provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The lead petitioner in this matter is Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi, with numerous other political leaders, religious organizations, and civil society groups joining as co-petitioners.
Petitioners
The petitioners in the consolidated matter include:
- AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi
- AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan (Delhi)
- TMC MP Mahua Moitra
- RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha
- SP MP Zia ur Rehman
- Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani
- Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR)
- Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema,
- Anjum Kadari, Taiyyab Khan Salmani, and Mohammad Shafi
- Indian Union Muslim League (IUML)
- All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)
- Communist Party of India (CPI)
- Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), among others.
These petitioners argue that the Amendment violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 25, and 26 by infringing upon the rights of the Muslim community to freely manage and administer their religious endowments.
Intervention Applications
Meanwhile, intervention applications have been filed in support of the legislation by the BJP-led State Governments of:
- Assam
- Rajasthan
- Chhattisgarh
- Uttarakhand
- Haryana
- Maharashtra
These States have argued that the amendments aim to promote transparency, prevent misuse of waqf properties, and enhance administrative efficiency.
Common Provisions Under Challenge
The following amendments have been broadly contested across the petitions:
- Omission of ‘Waqf by User’:
The deletion of the provision recognizing waqfs established through long-standing public usage has raised concerns regarding the historical and cultural significance of such waqfs. - Inclusion of Non-Muslim Members:
The amended provisions permit the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, which the petitioners claim undermines the community-specific nature of waqf institutions. - Gender Quota Restrictions:
The amendment caps the number of women members on Waqf Boards and Councils to two, which is being challenged as discriminatory and arbitrary. - Eligibility Criteria for Creating a Waqf:
A new condition mandates that only those who have been practising Muslims for a continuous period of five years can create a waqf, thereby potentially excluding converts or recent adherents. - Dilution of Waqf-alal-Aulad:
Provisions perceived to restrict or dilute the creation of waqfs for the benefit of family descendants (waqf-alal-aulad) are also under scrutiny. - Renaming of the Act:
The renaming of the “Waqf Act, 1995” to the “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act” is alleged to reflect a shift from religious autonomy to bureaucratic control. - Appeals Against Tribunal Orders:
The scope and forum for appeals against decisions of the Waqf Tribunal have been modified, allegedly curtailing access to higher judicial review. - Government’s Role in Encroachment Disputes:
New provisions allow the government to adjudicate disputes regarding encroachment on government land allegedly claimed as waqf, bypassing existing mechanisms. - Application of the Limitation Act:
The inclusion of the Limitation Act, 1963 is seen by petitioners as a move that could invalidate historical claims to waqf properties. - Prohibition on Waqf over ASI-Protected Monuments:
Waqfs created over monuments protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) have been declared invalid, raising questions about the preservation of religious rights over heritage sites. - Restrictions on Waqfs in Scheduled Areas:
The creation of waqfs in Scheduled Areas (as defined under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution) has been restricted, affecting tribal and minority communities alike.
BRIEF OF YESTERDAY’S PROCEEDINGS
On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, expressed deep reservations about several controversial provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, while hearing over 90 petitions challenging the legislation.
One of the primary concerns raised was the omission of the long-standing category of waqf-by-user—properties that have been informally treated as waqf due to consistent religious use over centuries, despite lacking formal documentation.
The CJI warned that the de-notification of such properties could cause a
“huge problem,” especially in light of India’s pre-colonial history, where no land registration system existed. He criticized the impracticality of expecting sale deeds for 14th or 15th-century religious structures, citing Jama Masjid as an example.
During the two-hour hearing, the bench also discussed a host of contentious provisions, including the inclusion of non-Muslims as members of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, a move that petitioners argued undermines the autonomy of religious institutions.
CJI Khanna questioned
whether a similar provision would be acceptable in the context of Hindu religious boards and emphasized that religious identity should not influence judicial competence, remarking, “When we sit here, we lose our religion.”
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, and Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for various petitioners, raised constitutional objections under Article 26, which guarantees the freedom to manage religious affairs.
They argued that
“forcing individuals to prove they are practising Muslims for at least five years before creating a waqf imposes an arbitrary religious test, effectively transferring control of Islamic charitable institutions to the state“
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the amendments, asserting that the government’s role was only to ensure transparency and that only a minimal number of non-Muslim members would be included on Waqf Boards.
The bench considered three tentative interim directions:
(1) preserving the status of already declared waqf properties, including waqf-by-user;
(2) staying the operation of the provision that freezes property usage during the status review by a government official; and
(3) permitting non-Muslims as ex-officio members in Waqf bodies only if Muslims remain the majority. However, no interim relief was passed, as the government sought more time to respond, prompting the court to adjourn proceedings to April 17 at 2 p.m.
This high-stakes constitutional challenge carries significant implications for the governance of religious endowments in India, especially given the potential communal and legal ramifications.
The Supreme Court’s observations hint at a cautious approach toward safeguarding religious freedoms while balancing the state’s role in regulating public property and charitable trusts.
DETAILS OF TODAY’S HEARING
On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a significant hearing concerning the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, granted the Union Government a seven-day extension to file its detailed response.
The matter is now titled In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, signaling the Court’s recognition of the issue’s national importance and constitutional significance. The Bench comprised Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
No Interim Stay — But Protections in Place
While the Court declined to issue an interim stay on the implementation of the Amendment Act, it nevertheless ensured that the status quo would be maintained on key concerns raised by the petitioners. The Union Government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, gave an assurance that
no new appointments would be made to the Central Waqf Council or any State Waqf Boards until the matter is next heard.
The Bench recorded this commitment, acknowledging the potential complications that could arise if appointments were made during the pendency of the case.
Additionally, the Court directed that
the status of properties recognised as waqf by user—a category abolished by the 2025 Amendment—must not be altered in the interim.
This ensures temporary protection for historically religious properties that lack formal documentation but have been used for religious or charitable purposes over long periods, particularly those predating formal land registration systems in India.
Government’s Historical Defence
Opening the arguments for the day, SG Mehta urged the
Court not to consider the matter solely through a narrow or provisional reading of the 2025 amendments.
He stressed the
importance of examining the evolution of waqf laws from 1923 onward, highlighting the complexities involved.
“We will have to take you through history,” Mehta submitted,
implying that only a full contextual understanding would allow the Court to fairly assess the intent and impact of the amended law.
CJI Khanna acknowledged the point but emphasized
the need to preserve the existing rights of all stakeholders until a comprehensive hearing could be held.
The Court expressed particular concern that any new appointments made while the issue remains under judicial scrutiny might prejudice the final outcome or result in administrative entanglements.
Mehta reassured the Court that
even under the current law, appointments were unlikely to proceed within a week and any action taken in contravention of the Court’s directive could be rendered null and void.
The Debate on Waqf-by-User Properties
A focal point of the petitions is the abolition of the waqf-by-user category under the 2025 Amendment. These are properties that have traditionally served religious or charitable purposes but do not have registered waqf deeds.
The Solicitor General contended that
even waqf-by-user properties have required registration since the 1923 Waqf Act, thus denying the petitioners’ claim that their rights had been newly extinguished.
Petitioners, however, argued that
“thousands of historical waqf properties were never formally registered, and yet, their religious and communal usage has been undisputed for centuries“
In response to these competing views, the Court directed that
no waqf-by-user properties—declared or registered—shall be denotified before the next hearing.
This temporary safeguard ensures continuity for religious institutions and communities that rely on such properties for worship and charitable functions.
ALSO READ: Decoding ‘Waqf by User’: Why the Supreme Court Raised Concerns Over Its Deletion
Administrative Streamlining Amid a Flood of Petitions
Recognizing the sheer volume of litigation—with nearly 100 petitions currently filed—the Court moved to streamline the proceedings.
It appointed Advocate Kanu Aggarwal as the nodal counsel for the respondents (Union Government), and Advocate Vikas Jain as the nodal counsel for the petitioners.
These counsels are tasked with coordinating the filing and compilation of relevant documents, arguments, and submissions on behalf of their respective parties.
Furthermore, the Bench announced that
it would hear arguments from only five designated senior counsels representing the petitioners to ensure clarity and judicial efficiency.
The Court also clarified that any petitions challenging the Waqf Act, 1995, and its 2013 amendments would be heard separately and not clubbed with the current set of challenges focused solely on the 2025 Amendment Act.
Next Hearing Date
The matter is now scheduled for hearing in the week commencing May 5, 2025. The Court is expected to begin examining the constitutional implications of the 2025 amendments, particularly in relation to Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
Broader Implications
The case touches upon crucial issues of religious freedom, administrative control, and minority rights in India. The Court’s careful balancing—declining to stay the law but extracting significant assurances from the government—reflects its cautious and measured approach. The renaming of the case and procedural directives signal the judiciary’s intention to treat this not merely as a legal dispute but as a matter of national constitutional relevance.
Case Title: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India | W.P. (C) No. 269 of 2025 and connected matters
READ THE ORDER HERE
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE