The Supreme Court of India will be hearing a group of petitions that are challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India will today, Thursday, again start hearing a group of petitions that are challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The hearing is scheduled to take place at 2 p.m.
This important legal matter is being heard by a special bench of the Supreme Court which includes Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
On Wednesday, the bench had shown willingness to move forward with the petitions by issuing a notice and also possibly giving a short order.
But before the court could pass any such order, the Central Government and some state governments requested the court for more time. They said they needed time to present their views and arguments before any temporary or final decision is taken.
While hearing the case, the Supreme Court mentioned three main concerns. These concerns raise serious questions about how the changes in the Waqf law might affect certain issues related to religious properties:
First, the court spoke about old court decisions which had already declared some properties as Waqf by usage. Now, after the new changes in law, such properties may become invalid. This is a major issue as it may affect several religious properties.
Second, the court was worried about a new rule in the amendment which may allow non-Muslims to become majority members in the Waqf Council. This is being questioned because the Waqf is mainly related to Muslim religious and charitable properties.
Third, the court talked about another rule that says when the District Collector is still checking whether a certain land belongs to Waqf or not, such land should not be treated as Waqf land until the inquiry is finished. This has created doubts and concerns among those affected.
At the end of the hearing, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna also shared his concern about the recent violent incidents in West Bengal, which have reportedly happened due to the changes in the Waqf Act.
He said,
“We are very concerned about the violence that has broken out in West Bengal against the amendments to the Waqf Act.”
The matter is very serious as it involves both religious rights and government control, and the Supreme Court’s decision will have a long-term impact on how Waqf properties are governed in India.
Key Updates
- The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for May and has directed the Union government to file its response to the petitions.
- The Court has ordered that no user-claimed waqf properties shall be denotified until the next hearing.
- No new appointments shall be made to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards in the interim.
- The Chief Justice observed that the ground reality could potentially shift if certain provisions of the law are not stayed.
LIVE UPDATES
The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to submit its
“response to the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025“
The matter will be heard next in May.
Emphasizing procedural efficiency, the Bench indicated that no more than five petitioners would be permitted to present oral arguments. Each side has been asked to designate a nodal counsel to streamline proceedings.
Acting on a suggestion by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Court also ordered that
the case title be modified to In re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 – 12345, to discourage the filing of multiple, similar petitions.
CJI:
We clarify that the next hearing will focus on preliminary objections and directions for the interim order. The case will be referred to as In Re: Waqf Amendment Act – matters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
CJI:
The writ petitions that challenge the 1995 Waqf Act and the 2013 amendment will be listed separately in the cause list. All sides are allowed to file their replies. As a special case, petitioners challenging the 2013 amendment can also file their responses, and the Union, States, and Waqf Boards may file their replies within 7 days. Both sides should appoint nodal counsels.
Sibal:
Your Lordships may please mention “declared or registered,” including waqf by user.
CJI:
Yes, it includes waqf by user.
CJI:
The petitioners’ lawyers have agreed to select 5 main cases, and the rest will be treated as supporting applications.
CJI:
Regarding the writ petitions, we will only consider 5 main ones. It’s not possible to handle 100 or 120 cases. The rest will be treated as closed. We won’t mention individual party names—the case will simply be referred to as Waqf (Amendment) Act.
CJI:
Please appoint nodal counsels to coordinate.
Order :
He also assured the court that no appointments will be made to the Waqf Council or Board under Sections 9 and 14. Until the next hearing, any waqf—including waqf by user—that has already been registered or declared through a notification will not be denotified, and the Collector in charge will not be changed. We are recording this statement.
BREAKING:
Interim Order: During the hearing, the Solicitor General said that the Union government would like to file its response within 7 days.
Singhvi:
That’s the issue! Waqf by usage may not even be registered. CJI: Alright, let me start dictating the order.
CJI:
Even for waqf claimed by use—if it’s registered under Section 36 of the 1995 Act… Singhvi: As per Proviso 3(C), such properties won’t be treated as waqf. CJI: Once we say a waqf is declared or registered…
SG:
The power to appoint the board is with me.. it won’t happen. CJI: But the states are also involved in this. SG: If any state makes an appointment before the court gives its decision, it should be considered invalid.
CJI:
Things like setting up boards and councils, or waqf properties already registered under Section 36 of the 1995 Act.. not the new 2025 Act.. we don’t want any changes in that. Parliament makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets. Dwivedi: But Parliament has the right to make such laws.
2:11 PM- SG Mehta:
“As per my understanding of the legislation, no significant changes can occur within just a week—even if the government intended to act.”
CJI (further clarifies):
“So, as of now, there should be no new appointments to Waqf Boards or Councils, and no alterations to waqf properties already registered.”
CJI:
“Matters such as the establishment of boards and councils, or properties already registered under Section 36 of the Waqf Act, 1995—not under the new 2025 Act—should remain unaffected. Parliament enacts laws, the executive enforces them, and the judiciary interprets them.”
SG (Solicitor General):
“If Your Lordships make any observation regarding waqf claims, it may have far-reaching consequences…”
2:10 PM – CJI:
“We’ve already said there are some good parts in the law. We’ve also made it clear that there won’t be a total stay. But at the same time, we don’t want the current situation to change in a way that causes problems… like in the five-year rule for following Islam. We’re not putting a stay on that, but we may consider staying some parts.”
2:10 PM – Justice Kumar:
“We’re not making a final decision right now. SG: But passing an order like this is quite serious. Please give me a week to submit an initial reply with some documents. This issue needs to be looked at more carefully.“
2:08 PM– SG Mehta:
I respectfully speak on behalf of the Union. The court will definitely have questions. But to be honest, the issue here is that these matters shouldn’t result in a stay just because, at first glance, some sections seem concerning. We need to look at past amendments and earlier laws to understand the full picture.
2:05 PM – Solicitor General Tushar Mehta:
“I am making this submission with due respect while representing the Union. The concerns raised warrant careful consideration. The core issue is that such matters should not warrant a stay merely on a prima facie reading of a few provisions. A comprehensive understanding of previous amendments and earlier enactments is essential.”
2:04 PM – SG Tushar Mehta:
“With due regard and concern, I wish to state that the Court appears to be considering a stay, either directly or indirectly—something that is quite rare.”
A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India commenced the hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, began his arguments by responding to the Court’s earlier suggestion that it may consider staying certain disputed provisions of the law.
“We are accountable to the people. Entire villages and private properties have been declared as waqf,” he asserted.
2:04 PM – Courtroom Update: Courtroom No. 1 is at full capacity, with counsels for both the petitioners and the Central Government present and seated.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
