Waqf Amendment Act: Centre tells Supreme Court it will not constitute Waqf boards, de-notify existing waqf for now

The Central government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that certain key provisions of the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the formation of the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards and provisions on de-notifying properties already declared or registered as waqf, will not be acted upon for the time being..A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan recorded the assurance given by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta in this regard."During the course of the hearing, Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General, stated that the respondents would like to file a reply/response within a period of seven days from today. He assures this Court that till the next date of hearing, no appointments would be made to the Central Waqf Council and the Waqf Boards in the States and the National Capital Territory of Delhi, under Sections 9 and 14 respectively of the principal Act, that is, the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. He further states that if the Government of any State or the National Capital Territory of Delhi makes any such appointment(s), the same may be declared void. It is also stated that till the next date of hearing, no Waqf, including a Waqf by user, whether declared by way of notification or by way of registration, shall be de-notified, nor will their character or status be changed. We take these statements on record," the Court said in its order..The Court granted the government seven days to file its response to the prayer for a stay of the provisions of the Act. The petitioners can file their rejoinder within five days after that, the Court said.The matter will be heard again on May 5 to decide on the interim prayer."The hearing on the next date will only be for directions and interim orders, if any," the Bench made it clear..In a nutshell.Interestingly, the Court also said that only five of the petitioners' counsel should be present in court on the next hearing date, and only they will be heard.There are more than 70-odd petitions currently pending before the Court.The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to decide which of the five among them should be heard."Only five writ petitioners to be in court from next hearing. We only want 5 here. You select five," the Bench said today.Other petitions will be treated as applications in the five petitions and will be disposed of, the Bench clarified.Interestingly, the Court also said that the case will henceforth be known as In Re: Waqf Amendment Act and not by the name of any of the petitioners.The Court further asked both sides to decide on nodal counsel who shall coordinate with the parties on filings and other communications between the bar and the bench..Background and arguments on April 16.The order was passed in a slew of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.The Lok Sabha had passed the law on April 3, while the Rajya Sabha cleared it on April 4.The new law amended the Waqf Act, 1995, in order to address the regulation of Waqf properties, that is, properties dedicated exclusively for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law.The amendment Act received Presidential assent on April 5.A bunch of petitions were filed before the top court challenging the amendment's validity, including by Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mohammad Jawed and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi.More such petitions followed in the ensuing days. The petitioners contended that the amendment amounts to discrimination against Muslims. They argued that the amendments selectively target Muslim religious endowments and interfere with the community’s constitutionally protected right to manage its own religious affairs..On the other hand, six Bhartiya Janta Party-ruled States have also moved the Supreme Court in the matter, albeit in support of the amendment. These intervention applications have been filed by the States of Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Assam. These States have primarily highlighted how they would be affected in case the constitutionality of the Amendment Act were to be tinkered with..At the core of the challenge is the removal of waqf by user from the statutory definition of waqf. The petitioners argued that this omission would deprive historical mosques, graveyards, and charitable properties many of which have existed for centuries without formal waqf deeds of their religious character. When the matter was heard on Wednesday, the Court appeared inclined to agree, questioning whether documentary proof can even be produced for structures that predate colonial registration laws.“Before the British came, we did not have any registration or Transfer of Property Act. Many masjids will be in the 14th or 15th century… Suppose Jama Masjid,” Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna remarked..The Bench on Wednesday also questioned the sweeping powers given to District Collectors to determine waqf status in the event of a dispute. “Is that fair? The moment the Collector starts deciding it, it stops being waqf. Is it fair?” the Court asked.Another contentious provision under the amended law is the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. The Chief Justice posed a pointed question to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Union government. “Mr. Mehta, are you saying that from now on, you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly!” When the SG attempted to compare the religious identity of the judges on the Bench with the new composition of Waqf Boards, the CJI responded sharply. “What! When we sit over here, we lose our religion. For us, both sides are the same. How can you compare it with the judges? Why not have non-Muslims also in the advisory board of Hindu endowments then?”.The Bench further warned against the potential misuse of the new de-notification provisions, especially in cases where waqf status had been judicially declared in the past. “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. You cannot rewrite the past,” the CJI observed.Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, CU Singh, Rajeev Dhavan, and others appeared for the petitioners. They contended that the amended law violated the fundamental rights of religious denominations and allowed unconstitutional State interference in matters of faith. Among the issues flagged were the requirement that a person should have practiced Islam for five years to be eligible to create a waqf, and the mandatory registration of all waqf properties. The petitioners argued that these requirements would invalidate countless historic waqfs and contradict principles upheld even in the Ayodhya judgment..Solicitor General Mehta defended the amendment as the outcome of detailed parliamentary deliberation. Among other submissions, he asserted that the registration requirement was not new and existed under the 1995 Act as well.The Court, however, remained unconvinced on several points and indicated that it may pass a limited interim order to preserve the status quo. The Bench proposed that no properties judicially declared as waqf, whether by user or otherwise, should be de-notified for the time being, and that only ex-officio Muslim members be permitted on the Waqf Boards and Council until further orders..Hearing todayWhen the matter was heard on Thursday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Court not to impose any stay.He said that the law was enacted after taking into account many representations and suggestions."These are not issues which should lead to staying .. based on prima facie reading of some Sections. We need to read past amendments, past Acts etc. We received lakhs and lakhs of representation .. villages and villages are taken as waqf. So many lands are claimed as waqf. This Court may hear it.. but this question needs assistance. A large number of people has questions on their property," he said."We are not deciding finally," Justice Kumar said."But this (any stay) is a harsh step. Please give me a week to file a preliminary reply with some documents. This is not a matter which can be considered like this," the SG stated.The CJI said that there are positives in the law, but the status quo as it exists today with regard to various waqf properties also cannot be disturbed. Hence, a stay on certain provisions may be warranted, it said. "We had said there were some positive things in the law. We have stated that there cannot be complete stay. But we also don't want the situation to change which is prevailing now. Like the five years following Islam (requirement), we are not staying that. But some provisions...when matter is pending before the court, we have to ensure that the situation as it exists now is not disturbed," the CJI stated.The SG sought time to file a response before any such order is passed.The Bench, however, observed that some provisions will have to be halted."No appointment of board or council can take place. And if registration has taken place under the 1995 Act, then those properties cannot be disturbed. We are saying executive decides and judiciary adjudicates," the CJI remarked.."Appointment of board is in my (government's) hand, it will not happen," the SG assured. "States are also involved here," the CJI reminded. "If any State makes any appointment till the court decides the case, it will be treated as void," the SG assured.The Court then recorded the SG's assurance and proceeded to keep the matter for hearing on May 5..[Read Order].[Read live coverage]