Dismissing a first appeal, the Gujarat High Court upheld concurrent findings of the Waqf Board and the Waqf Tribunal on the character and management of a disputed dargah waqf in Patan district. It held that an inquiry under Section 40 of the Waqf Act is not a full-fledged trial, and that the appellants had shown no real prejudice from the denial of a separate hearing on their preliminary objections.
The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad held that the availability of a remedy before the Waqf Tribunal does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge is to the legality of the Waqf Board’s own action, and quashed an official memorandum constituting an eleven-month ad-hoc committee in place of the mechanism under Rule 54 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju has launched the UMEED portal to enhance transparency and management of waqf properties in India. The platform ensures real-time data access and requires property registration within six months. It features a three-tier verification system, an online grievance redressal mechanism, and aims to benefit marginalized communities.
The Centre informed the Supreme Court that Waqf, while an Islamic concept, is not an essential religious practice. In defending the Waqf Amendment Act against legal challenges, Solicitor General Mehta emphasized the need for public property protection and clarified that Waqf serves charitable purposes, involving secular functions and consultation with various Muslim bodies.
Petitioners are contesting the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in the Supreme Court, arguing it allows government seizure of waqf properties through non-judicial means, compromising their religious status. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal claims the amendment undermines past protections and may lead to loss of waqf status if not registered, raising significant legal concerns.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, passed by the Indian Parliament, alters the 1995 Waqf Act, prompting widespread debate and legal challenges. Notable changes include expanded government control and inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards, raising concerns about religious autonomy. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing its constitutional validity amidst ongoing hearings.
The central government opposed any stay on the new Waqf laws during a Supreme Court hearing, asserting the laws’ constitutional validity. The government argued that courts cannot halt statutory provisions. Petitioners, challenging the laws’ constitutionality, claim they violate fundamental rights and interfere with the Muslim community’s autonomy in managing Waqf affairs.
