Today, On 16th January, The Supreme Court refused to hear a Waqf Muttawalli’s plea on alleged UMEED portal glitches, saying he must approach the proper authority. The Bench said, “We see no ground to entertain this writ petition,” granting liberty for clarification.
The Supreme Court declined to consider a writ petition submitted by a Waqf Muttawalli, who claimed there were technical issues with the Union government’s UMEED portal for uploading Waqf property details.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, noted that the petitioner should approach the appropriate authorities to address their concerns instead of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution.
The Bench stated,
“We see no ground to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner may be well advised to approach the prescribed authority for clarification or addressing of grievances, for which liberty is granted,”
At the beginning of the hearing, the Bench questioned Senior Advocate Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, who represented the petitioner, about why the concerns couldn’t be addressed in the jurisdictional High Court.
In response, Guruswamy argued that High Courts might be hesitant to consider the matter since challenges to the 2025 amendments to the Waqf law were already pending before the Supreme Court.
However, the Chief Justice clarified that the current petition dealt with “administrative difficulties” related to the portal’s operation, rather than a substantive constitutional issue regarding the amendments.
Such matters could be better evaluated by the High Court. Guruswamy further pointed out that beyond the technical issues, the petitioner was concerned about the classification under the Waqf Rules, stating that “Waqf by survey” had been included under the “Waqf by user” category without a separate option on the UMEED portal.
Justice Bagchi noted that the Ministry had already made it clear that “Waqf by survey” falls under the “Waqf by user” category. When Guruswamy insisted that this was the central issue, Justice Bagchi remarked that it challenged the legality of the classification rather than indicating a fault with the portal.
The judge commented,
“It is not a difficult situation for your client to upload details under the Waqf by user category. You can always do it by raising an objection that it is not a Waqf by user,”
The Bench further pointed out that the petitioner had already uploaded information under the “Waqf by user” category, which contradicted the claim that the portal was malfunctioning.
Justice Bagchi also remarked that potential consequences from misclassification were less serious considering the Waqf in question was already registered.
He noted,
“There is no dilution of rights by putting your case under Waqf by user. You are a registered Waqf,”
When Guruswamy claimed that the 2025 amendment required all Waqfs to re-register, Justice Bagchi disagreed, clarifying that registration was a pre-existing legal obligation and that the amendment only required data to be uploaded onto the portal.
He explained,
“Registration and uploading are different. Uploading is just a data entry,”
The writ petition was initiated by a Mutawalli from Madhya Pradesh, challenging the requirement to digitally upload information under Section 3B of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.
The petitioner claimed that the UMEED portal, as outlined in the UMEED Rules, 2025, was structurally flawed and technologically inadequate, particularly in Madhya Pradesh, where most Waqfs are survey and Gazette-notified properties, making it rare to find “Waqf by user.”
The petitioner contended that being compelled to upload under an incorrect category would result in an unlawful declaration and breach fiduciary duties.
The petition, submitted by Advocate on Record Vaibhav Choudhary, sought to declare the portal non-functional for registering such Waqfs, to address the alleged shortcomings, and to establish a separate upload mechanism for them. It also requested protection against any coercive or penal actions for non-compliance.
Notably, on December 1, the Supreme Court had refused to extend the six-month deadline for mandatory registration of Waqf properties on the UMEED portal under the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, directing applicants to seek relief from the Waqf Tribunal instead.
Case Title: Hashmat Ali v. Union of India
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Waqf