The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking a stay on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih concluded three days of detailed hearings before reserving its decision on interim relief.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025—which amends the original Waqf Act of 1995—was passed by the Lok Sabha on April 3 and the Rajya Sabha on April 4. It received Presidential assent on April 5. The amended law seeks to streamline the regulation of waqf properties—assets dedicated under Islamic law for religious or charitable purposes.
Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment, including those by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi. The petitioners allege that the amendment discriminates against the Muslim community by interfering with its constitutionally protected right to manage religious affairs under Article 26.
A key point of contention is the removal of the concept of ‘waqf by user’—properties historically treated as waqf without formal documentation—from the statutory definition. Petitioners argue this change endangers longstanding mosques, graveyards, and charitable properties that have existed for centuries without formal deeds.
Six BJP-ruled States—Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam—have intervened in support of the amendment, citing the potential impact on governance and land administration if the amendment is invalidated.
The Union government has defended the amendments, claiming they are necessary to prevent misuse of waqf laws for encroaching upon private and public lands. In its written submission, the Centre noted a 116% increase in auqaf areas following the 2013 amendments, arguing this reflected misuse of the law.
The government emphasized that removing "waqf by user" does not affect the right to dedicate property to God, but ensures such dedications follow statutory processes. It also dismissed concerns over the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards, asserting their representation is minimal and intended to promote inclusivity without affecting the community's rights under Article 26.
The Centre further assured the Court on April 17 that key provisions of the Act would not be enforced for the time being, prompting the Bench to refrain from granting an express stay.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union, argued that waqf is not an essential religious practice under Islam and the Waqf Boards perform secular, not religious, functions—unlike Hindu endowments, which are religious in nature. He emphasized that waqf boards do not interfere in religious practices and that their functioning justifies the presence of non-Muslim members.
Mehta also noted that most petitions are public interest litigations and not filed by directly affected individuals. He defended the legislative process, stating that the Joint Parliamentary Committee consulted various Muslim organizations and submitted a comprehensive report before the Act was passed after substantial debate.
On concerns that revenue authorities could determine waqf property titles, Mehta clarified that such authorities can only update records—not decide title ownership. A designated officer, separate from the Collector, will now handle these tasks following suggestions by the JPC.
Regarding the removal of 'waqf by user', Mehta stressed that it is not a fundamental right but a statutory concept, which can be amended or repealed by law. He also defended the five-year practice requirement for creating a waqf, distinguishing between creating a waqf and donating to one. Non-Muslims, he clarified, can donate to a waqf but cannot create one.
He also cited complaints from tribal communities alleging that tribal lands were being wrongly claimed as waqf, supporting the need for reform.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar referred to Islamic texts to argue that waqf can only be created from one's own property. He highlighted that earlier, Waqf Boards could unilaterally declare property as waqf—forcing individuals to seek redress before a tribunal. This adjudicatory power has now been removed and given solely to tribunals.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi pointed out the imbalance between the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which freezes religious status as of 1991, and the now-removed concept of waqf by user, which allowed claims to continue indefinitely.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised the issue of essential religious practices, arguing that since petitioners claim waqf is such a practice under Article 25, this constitutional question must be referred to a nine-judge Bench. He cited the Shirur Mutt judgment in support of this contention.
The case was earlier being heard by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna, who recused himself, and it was subsequently assigned to the present Bench led by CJI Gavai.
The Court has now reserved its verdict on the plea for interim relief and will deliver its order in due course.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy