The Central government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that certain key provisions of the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards and provisions on de-notifying properties declared as waqf by courts 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 course of the hearing, SG Mehta states that the respondents would like to file a short reply within 7 days and assured that till the next date, no appointment shall take place to board and councils under the 2025 Act. He also assures that waqfs, including waqf by user, already declared by notification or gazetted, their status shall not be changed," the Court noted 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.
Interestingly, the Court 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 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.
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.
