The Centre told the Supreme Court that Waqf, though Islamic, isn’t an essential religious practice. It defended the Waqf Amendment Act against protests and legal challenges.
The Central Government has told the Supreme Court that although Waqf is an Islamic concept, it is not a necessary part of the Islamic religion.
This statement was made while defending the Waqf Amendment Act, which has led to protests and a legal challenge.
Also Read: Uttarakhand Waqf Board Moves Supreme Court to Support Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said,
“Waqf is an Islamic concept, no doubt about it, but it is not an essential part of Islam. Waqf is not a fundamental right.”
Mr. Mehta explained that the Indian government represents the property rights of around 140 crore people and it is the duty of the State to make sure that public property is not taken over in an illegal way.
He added,
“A false narrative is created that they will have to provide documents, or Waqf is captured en masse.”
He clarified that Waqf is meant for charitable purposes and that the Waqf boards perform functions that are secular in nature.
Responding to objections raised by the petitioners regarding the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf boards, Mr. Mehta said,
“Having 2 Non-Muslims, what will it change? It is not touching any religious activity.”
He also pointed out that a small group of people cannot claim to speak on behalf of the entire Muslim community.
He mentioned that there was wide public consultation before the law was passed.
“We received 96 lakh representations. The JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) had 36 sittings. 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/rejected with reasons. Then it was passed with unprecedented debate.”
On the topic of ‘waqf by user’, the Centre explained that this term means that the land in question originally belonged to someone else, but people have used it continuously over time.
Therefore, it is necessary to examine who the real owner is.
“If there is a building which may be government property, can the government not examine whether the property belongs to the government?”
When the petitioners said that the government cannot be the one deciding its own claim, Mr. Mehta clarified that the decision about whether the land is government property would be made by revenue authorities.
However, they do not have the power to decide the legal ownership of the land.
“The revenue authorities would decide whether it is government land, but they cannot decide the title.”
Chief Justice BR Gavai expressed concern over how people might perceive the process.
He said,
“The picture that is being painted is that once the Collector conducts an inquiry, the property will cease to be a Waqf property and once the inquiry is complete, the entire property will be taken over by the government.”
Mr. Mehta responded by saying,
“The government will have to file a title suit for ownership.”
Regarding the rule that only a person who has been a practising Muslim for five years can donate to Waqf, Mr. Mehta explained that even under Islamic law, a person must prove their Muslim identity.
“Even Shariat has Section 3 that says you have to establish yourself as a Muslim. It does not mean you have to offer namaz 5 times a day or not drink wine etc. In some cases, difficulties have arisen regarding whether properties are subject to Waqf or not.”
Mr. Mehta also compared Waqf institutions to Hindu religious endowments. He said the government’s control over Hindu temples is much stronger.
he said,
“Hindu religious endowments are only religious. But Muslim Waqfs include many secular institutions like schools, madrasas, orphanages, dharamshalas etc,”
He gave an example from Maharashtra, where
“the Bombay Public Trust Act governs temples in Maharashtra and its chairman can be of any religion.”
He concluded by saying that Waqf organisations have two main roles — one is the Sajjadanashin, who is the spiritual head, and the other is the Mutawalli, who acts as the manager or administrator.
Also Read: LEGAL EXPLAINER| Waqf & The Waqf Amendment Bill 2024: Key Legal Changes & Impact
He said,
“First is not the subject of this Waqf case, because this law has nothing to do with religious and spiritual practice.”
This case, involving the interpretation and implications of the Waqf Amendment Act, is still being heard in the Supreme Court, with key questions being raised about land rights, secularism, and religious freedoms in India.
Case Title:
IN RE THE WAQF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025| W.P.(C) No. 276/2025
Click Here to Read Our Reports on WAQF
