SC to hear petitions against Waqf (Amendment) Act on Tuesday for interim orders

The Supreme Court will take up on May 20 petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 for passing interim orders.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih asked the petitioners against the amendment led by senior counsel Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, to file their short written notes by Monday.

“We will be considering the issue of interim relief only on Tuesday,” CJI Gavai said, posting the matter for hearing on Tuesday.

The top court had on April 17 deferred passing any interim orders in the matter after the Centre undertook not to make any appointments to waqf councils and waqf boards or de-notify existing waqf properties — including waqf-by-user or waqf-by-deed properties already declared by notification or gazetted.

On Thursday, Mehta assured the Bench that no waqf properties, including those established by waqf by user, would be de-notified till the next date of hearing.

The CJI said the Bench will not consider any plea for staying provisions of the 1995 Waqf law on May 20.

Under the amended law notified on April 8, the concept of ‘waqf by user’ has been abolished. Now, it is allowed only through declaration or endowment for all future Waqf properties.

‘Waqf by user’ was a practice where a property was recognised as a Muslim endowment (waqf) based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there wasn’t a formal, written declaration of waqf by the owner.

Only self-owned resources can be declared as Waqf after ensuring the inheritance rights of women and children and the DC will determine that land being donated by a Muslim is actually in his ownership under the amended law that also empowers state governments to nominate members, including representatives from backward classes and both Shia and Sunni communities to Waqf boards.

The Centre has defended the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, saying it was needed to curb the misuse of Waqf law provisions being misused to encroach private and government land.

In a 1,332-page affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the amendment, the Centre defended abolition of ‘waqf by user’ and inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has, however, contested the Centre’s affidavit, accusing it of submitting incorrect data before the top court.

Regarding abolition 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. Such claims “not only lead to deprivation of valuable property rights of individual citizens but similarly unauthorized claims over public properties,” it contended.

“Waqf by user does not deprive a person of the Muslim community to create a waqf. It impinges on the form by which such a dedication is to be made, which is the secular dimension of the dedication, and not the right of an individual to dedicate his or her property to God,” it contended.

Pointing out that non-Muslim members were in a “microscopic minority” in the Waqf Council and Waqf Boards, the Centre said their presence gave inclusivity to these bodies. “Since the secular aspects of waqf administrations may require dealing with issues concerning non-Muslims who are either beneficiaries, aggrieved parties or affected parties,” it said, adding limited non-Muslim participation was aimed at modernising governance structures.

There was nothing arbitrary if the competent Legislature permitted non-Muslims to participate in the effective administration of waqfs and thereby modernize the way in which waqfs were governed in India to keep pace with waqfs in other parts of the world, the Centre said.

Hinting at land grab, the Centre said “shockingly” there was an addition of over 20.92 lakh hectare in Waqf land since the previous amendment to the Waqf Act in 2013.

The Centre asserted that there can’t be a “blanket stay” on the law as there was a presumption of constitutionality in favour of a law enacted by Parliament.

Maintaining that the amendment was only for regulating the secular aspect regarding the management of Waqf properties, it asserted there was no violation of religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

India