Petitioners in the Supreme Court argue that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 allows the government to seize waqf properties through non-judicial means, threatening their religious status. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal called the law a major departure from past protections.
New Delhi: Today, On Tuesday 20, the Supreme Court heard arguments from petitioners who are challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
They said that the recent changes made to the waqf law are aimed at taking control of waqf properties through a government process that is not judicial.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that
“The 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act has been framed for purposes of ‘protection of waqfs’, but, in reality, it is designed to capture waqf through a process which is non-judicial and executive.”
The bench hearing the case consisted of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih.
Kapil Sibal explained what waqf properties are. He said these are donations made to Allah by private people, and once a property becomes waqf, it cannot be transferred or changed.
This is based on the rule “once a waqf, always a waqf.” But according to the new Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, if someone who is not the rightful owner claims there is a dispute over the waqf property, the property will lose its special waqf status until the dispute is resolved.
He said,
“The 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act is a complete departure from the past legislations on waqf. It is for the first time, under the 2025 Amendment Act, in case of non-registration, the property will not be regarded as property.”
Sibal pointed out that earlier laws required waqf properties to be registered but did not have any harsh consequences if registration was not done, except that the mutawalli (caretaker) could be removed.
But now, if a waqf property is not registered under this amendment, it might lose its status as a waqf property altogether.
Sibal also talked about other laws like the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
He said these laws were made to protect waqf properties better but they never changed the nature of the waqf itself.
To explain, he gave an example saying,
“For example, say, Jama Masjid or any other place of worship. The government can say it intends to preserve the property and declare the property an ‘ancient monument’. But the property won’t lose its character, and it doesn’t mean that you can go and pray there. No ownership was transferred to the government. You couldn’t stop the user of the waqf property for the purposes of dedication.”
The petitioners fear that the 2025 amendment will give the government too much power to interfere with waqf properties in ways that were never intended before.
They argue that the amendment threatens the special protection that these religious endowments have always had under the law.
The case is now being closely watched as it involves important questions about the balance between protecting waqf properties and government control.
This hearing raises major legal and constitutional issues about religious property rights and the process for protecting them.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether the changes made by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, are fair and lawful, or if they undermine the basic principles of waqf and the rights of the community.
