Today, On 1st November, The Supreme Court heard pleas seeking more time to complete mandatory Waqf registration on the UMEED Portal, with petitioners citing glitches and missing historical records. The Bench said those unable to meet the six-month deadline must individually approach the Tribunal for extension.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday heard a group of petitions seeking an extension of the six-month deadline for mandatory registration and uploading of Waqf property details on the UMEED Portal under the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.
The matter came before a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal opened the arguments by stressing that the statutory window of six months was completely inadequate.
Also Read: Waqf Amendment Act: Chronology of Events, Supreme Court’s Interim Ruling | Explained
He said,
“Six months is far too short. The kind of information we’re required to provide is impossible to gather how can we know the name of the wakif when the waqf is 100, 50, or even 25 years old? These details are mandatory; without them, the portal won’t accept the application.”
Justice Datta responded that,
“The time limit was never stayed.”
Sibal replied that when the matter was argued earlier,
“The portal did not even exist.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also highlighted technical problems, saying,
“The portal has several glitches. We intend to comply, but because of genuine technical issues, there won’t be meaningful compliance within the current timeframe.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, maintained that the requirement of mandatory registration is not new.
He said,
“Mandatory registration has existed since 1929 over a century. Still, I am not relying on that technicality. Section 3(B) allows for extension, but that power wasn’t exercised.”
He further submitted,
“None of the waqfs themselves are before the Court only individuals. Each waqf can approach the Tribunal, show why they couldn’t file within six months, and seek an extension based on their specific circumstances. What they’re essentially requesting amounts to amending Section 3B.”
Sibal countered this by pointing out the difficulty of collecting old records,
“The deed of waqf, the name and address of the waqif how can anyone trace these details for a century-old waqf?”
The Bench then asked why applicants could not upload the information they presently have.
In response, Sibal explained,
“The portal doesn’t allow it unless all mandatory fields are filled.”
Another counsel added that filing individual extension applications would overwhelm the system,
“Lakhs of applications for extension will have to be filed, and there isn’t even a Tribunal in Delhi. I’ll share the portal glitches with my learned friend. People have been trying every day but still can’t upload. We only want a temporary solution let us return after a week.”
Justice Datta insisted on proof if the functioning of the portal was disputed,
“If the portal is functioning, as the Solicitor says, and you dispute that, you must show evidence.”
Sibal assured the court,
“I will place the evidence.”
Justice Datta reiterated that those unable to meet the deadline must go to the Tribunal,
“And if you still cannot meet the timeline, you can approach the Tribunal.”
Sibal urged the court for a practical approach, stating,
“Your Lordships can take a practical decision, allow everyone to first fix the portal glitches and then upload the details. Instead of the six-month deadline, the Court can set a workable approach.”
But the Bench cautioned against granting blanket relief,
“But if we do that, even those who have no genuine reason for the delay who have simply been sitting on it will also get the same benefit.”
Sibal pleaded for limited permission,
“Kindly just allow us to file an application if it is impossible to comply.”
The Bench responded,
“The liberty is always there.”
Also Read: Munambam Waqf Land Dispute: Waqf Body Challenges Kerala HC Verdict in Supreme Court
The Court finally observed,
“If the six-month period isn’t enough, you must go to the Tribunal. This Court has already considered that aspect.”
When Sibal pointed out that the issue of digitisation had not been considered, the Court clarified,
“This is not the proceeding in which we can address that. You should raise it before the Tribunal.”
Case Title: IN RE THE WAQF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025 (1), W.P.(C) No. 276/2025
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Waqf