New Delhi [India], April 17 (ANI): The Supreme Court is likely to pass an interim order on Thursday concerning the recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, following petitions filed by multiple parties, both supporting and opposing the contentious legislation.
On Wednesday, after a two-hour-long hearing, the apex court indicated it may stay certain key provisions of the Act, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards, the powers of Collectors to decide disputes over Waqf properties, and provisions related to de-notifying properties declared as Waqf by courts.
The top court was about to dictate the order, but Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, and other counsels defending the Act, said they should be heard before the passing of the interim order.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan will continue the hearing today at 2 pm.
During the hearing yesterday, the bench mentioned it was considering passing an interim order to balance equities.
“We will say that whichever properties have been declared by the court to be Waqf or held to be Waqf will not be de-notified as Waqfs or be treated as non-Waqf properties, whether they are Waqf-by-user or Waqf-by-declaration or otherwise… declared by courts or otherwise,” the bench had said.
“Second, the Collector can continue with proceedings, but the proviso will not be given effect to. If he wants, he can move an application before this court, and we can modify it. Third, as far as the constitution of the Board and Council is concerned, ex officio members can be appointed, regardless of their faith, but the other members should be Muslims,” CJI Khanna had added.
CJI had observed that “government cannot rewrite history” through the changes brought by the amendments to the Waqf law while referring to the scope under the new Act to de-notify properties declared as Waqf long ago.
“When a public trust is declared to be a Waqf 100 or 200 years ago… suddenly you say it is being taken over by the Waqf board and declared otherwise,” said the bench.
The top court had questioned the government on how Waqf-by-user can be disallowed, as many will not have the requisite documents to get such Waqfs registered.
CJI had asked the Solicitor General, “How will government register such Waqfs-by-user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse but there are genuine ones also… If you undo it, then it will be a problem.”
On the issue of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and Councils, the bench had said that the nearest example is the Hindu Charitable Endowments Act.
“Whenever it comes to Hindu endowments, it would be Hindus who would be governing,” Justice Viswanathan had said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, said that a Collector is the officer designated to decide whether a property is Waqf or not; if there is a dispute, this person is part of the government and is thus a judge in his own cause.
“This is per se unconstitutional. This also says that property will not be a Waqf till the officer decides so. Only Muslims had been part of the Waqf council and Boards, but now, after the amendment, even Hindus can be a part of it,” he had contended.
“It is a parliamentary usurpation of the faith of 200 million persons,” Sibal added.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing a petitioner, said that Waqf is an essential and integral part of Islam, as charity is an essential and integral part of the faith.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had said that deletion of ‘Waqf-by-user’ is dangerous, as about four lakh out of eight lakh properties are Waqf-by-user, “which have now become illegal with one stroke of the pen.”
“We have been told the Delhi High Court building is in Waqf land; the Oberoi hotel is in Waqf land. We are not saying that all Waqf-by-user properties are wrong. But there are some genuine areas of concern too,” the CJI had replied.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had also told the apex court that the law was enacted after an elaborate exercise by the JPC, which held meetings in different parts of the country and took the views of stakeholders, and both houses of Parliament passed the bill after a long debate.
At the end of the hearing, the bench also expressed concern over violence in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district over the Act, stating, “The one thing is very disturbing—the violence that is taking place. The issue is before the court and we will decide.”
Several petitions were filed in the apex court challenging the Act, contending that it was discriminatory towards the Muslim community and violated their fundamental rights.
President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, on April 5, after it was passed by Parliament following heated debates.
Multiple MPs, including Asaduddin Owaisi, Mohammad Jawed, Imran Pratapgarhi, and Mahua Moitra, along with organizations such as AIMPLB and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, have approached the top court against the Act.
Defending the Act, BJP-led state governments from Rajasthan, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Uttarakhand, and Chhattisgarh have filed impleadment applications.
About The Author
