The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the plea seeking stay on Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. .A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard all parties at length for three days before reserving its order on interim relief..BackgroundThe Lok Sabha had passed the Waqf (Amendment) Act on April 3, while the Rajya Sabha cleared it on April 4. The amendment Act received Presidential assent on April 5.The new law amended the Waqf Act of 1995 in order to address the regulation of Waqf properties which are properties dedicated exclusively for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law.A batch 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 moved the Court contending that the amendment amounts to discrimination against Muslims.According to the petitioners, the amendments selectively target Muslim religious endowments and interfere with the community’s constitutionally protected right to manage its own religious affairs.Six Bhartiya Janta Party-ruled States also moved the Supreme Court in support of the amendment. The intervention applications were filed by the States of Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Assam. These States 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.According to the petitioners, 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.In response, the Union government has maintained that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was brought in to curb the misuse of waqf provisions that were being misused to encroach private and government properties.In a written response to the petitions challenging the new law, the Centre said after the previous amendment to the Waqf Act in 2013, there was a 116 per cent rise in "auqaf area".Defending the abolition of the concept of 'waqf by user', the Centre said despite there being a regime of mandatory registration for all kinds of waqf since 1923, individuals or organisations used to claim private lands and government lands as waqf "which not only lead to deprivation of valuable property rights of individual citizens but similarly unauthorized claims over public properties."The Centre also said that the exclusion of "waqf by user" from the definition of waqf does not curtail the right to dedicate property to God, but merely regulates the form of dedication in keeping with statutory requirements.On the objections regarding the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, the Centre said that the changes in the composition of these bodies do not impair the Muslim community’s rights under Article 26, it has stated. The addition of non-Muslim members are in a "microscopic minority" in the Council and Boards and their presence is meant to give inclusivity to the bodies, it was submitted.On April 17, the Central government had assured the Court that it would not enforce several key provisions of the Act for the time being. The Court had recorded this assurance and decided not to order any express stay.Former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna earlier recused himself for hearing the petitions and referred it to a bench led by current CJI BR Gavai which is now hearing the case.Yesterday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that though waqf is an Islamic concept, it is not an essential part of Islam and waqf boards discharge secular functions. Hence, the inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards is permissible, he contended.One of the arguments made by petitioners was that when non-Hindus are not allowed in Hindu endowment boards, Muslims should not be discriminated against by allowing non-Muslims in waqf boards.While distinguishing between a Waqf and Hindu trusts and endowment boards, Mehta said a Hindu endowment deals only with religious functions where as a Waqf deals with secular functions."Hindu endowment deals with only religious activity whereas waqf deals with secular activities. Hindu endowment activities are very pervasive. It is under serious challenge. Hindu endowment commissioner can go inside temple. Pujari is decided by the State government. Waqf board do not touch upon religious activity at all," the SG had said.The SG also pointed out yesterday that many of the petitions before the Court are in the nature of public interest litigation and are not filed by affected individuals.He contended that the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) had taken into consideration the interests of every Muslim in the country while drafting the Act."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 or rejected with reasons. Then it was passed with unprecedented debate," he said.He had also rebutted the argument that the government officer will be deciding the dispute over waqf property, including title."The revenue authorities decide whether it is government land or not. But it is only for the purpose of revenue records. They cannot decide on the title. It is not final. Initial Bill said that the collector will decide. The objection raised was collector will be a judge in his own case. So it was suggested by JPC that let somebody else, apart from the collector, be the designated officer. The only consequence of the exercise undertaken by the officer under Section 3C will be limited to correction of revenue records and board records. I have said this on affidavit. But nobody brought this to notice," Mehta argued.On the condition to register Waqf, the SG said yesterday that documents and particulars need to be furnished only as far as possible.Further, he pointed that the concept of Waqf by user is not a fundamental right."Waqf by user is not a fundamental right and was recognised by a statute. Judgment said if a right is conferred by statute. Tight can always be taken away by a statute," the SG stated..Hearing todayDuring the hearing today, SG Mehta defended the 5-year practice condition to be eligible for creation of waqf."Creating a waqf is different than donating to a waqf. This is why 5 years practice requirement for Muslims.. so that waqf is not used for defrauding someone. So suppose I am a Hindu and I want to donate for waqf, then donation can be made to a waqf. How can a non Muslim be allowed to create a waqf. He can always donate to a waqf," Mehta said.He also alleged that tribal lands are being grabbed under the garb of waqf."Yes there are pleas by tribal organisations saying that they are being victimised and that there lands are being grabbed as waqf. It is not atrociously unconstitutional," the SG contended.Declaration that one is a Muslim is essential even under Sharia Act, Mehta pointed out."If you see the Shariah Act, if a Muslim wants to take benefit of personal law application then also a declaration as a Muslim is needed. Same thing is here. Same declaration is being sought," it was submitted..Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the respondents, referred to Qur'an and Mulla's book on Mohammedan law to state that a person can only dedicate a property as waqf if it is his own property. "The board was also given an adjudicatory power to declare anything as waqf and person had to go to tribunal to get this rectified. And if not objected then it became final. This was omitted (in the new law) to take away adjudicatory power of board and has now been left only with the tribunal," he said.Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for one of respondents, said,"The Places of Worship Act is frozen in 1991 where as Waqf by user can continue beyond hundreds of years. How fair is this? Something which arises due to adverse possession goes beyond it. Then they say state laws are comparable to a central legislation.".Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for one of the respondents, said that since the issue of essential religious practice has been raised, that aspect needs to be decided first and hence, the matter will have to be referred to a nine-judge Bench.Sankaranarayanan was referring to the petitioners' submission that waqf is an essential religious practice under Islam protected by Article 25 of the Constitution (freedom of religion)."When they say there is an article 25 claim and that waqf is an essential religious practice, that very issue is referred to 9 judges. Shirur mutt (judgment) is referred and that question has to be decided first that whether it's an essential religious practice or not," he contended..Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan, Huzefa Ahmadi and CU Singh appeared for the petitioners..[Read Live Coverage]
