Supreme Court reserves orders on challenges to Waqf Amendment Act 2025
Supreme Court reserves orders on challenges to Waqf Amendment Act 2025
M.U.H
22/05/202522
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its interim orders on three key issues concerning the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, after hearing multiple petitions challenging the amended law’s validity.
A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard arguments over three consecutive days. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued for the central government.
Petitioners sought interim relief on three specific points:
Whether properties already declared waqf by courts, by deed, or through long-term usage (waqf by user) can be denotified.
The composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, which the petitioners say should include only Muslims (except ex-officio members).
A provision that allows the collector to decide whether a property is government land, which would prevent it from being treated as waqf.
Petitioners call the law a 'complete departure'
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, leading the challenge, described the law as a "complete departure from historical legal and constitutional principles" and accused the government of trying to "capture Waqf through a non-judicial process".
"This is a case about the systematic capture of waqf properties. The government cannot dictate what issues can be raised," he said.
Centre defends the amended law
Earlier, the government, in a 1,332-page affidavit, opposed any stay on the law. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was passed by Parliament and received Presidential assent on April 5. It was supported by 288 MPs in Lok Sabha (232 opposed), and passed in Rajya Sabha with 128 votes in favour and 95 against.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that “Waqf is an Islamic concept. But it is not an essential part of Islam... Waqf is nothing but just charity in Islam.” He added, “Charity is recognised in every religion, and it cannot be regarded as an essential tenet of any religion.”
'Waqf by user' not a fundamental right
Mehta posited that the concept of waqf-by-user — wherein a property is treated as waqf based on long-term use for religious or charitable purposes — is a statutory right, not a constitutional one.
“Waqf by user is not a fundamental right, it is a creature of statute, and what the legislature creates, it can also take away,” he said.
He warned that staying the law’s provision abolishing unregistered waqf-by-user would defeat its purpose of stopping the misuse of government land.
“The Centre is the custodian of properties on behalf of 140 million citizens,” Mehta said, adding that no one could claim rights over government land based on unverified usage.
Disputes to be settled through legal process
Addressing concerns that government officials could now arbitrarily declare properties as government land, Mehta called such claims "misleading and false". He clarified that any possession changes could only happen through proper procedure via Waqf Tribunal proceedings and appeals under Section 83.
He added that "... the possession would continue with the Waqf until the issue was fully adjudicated".
Parliamentary scrutiny and stakeholder input
Mehta highlighted that the law was not rushed. He cited the extensive deliberations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, which held 96 meetings, received 9.7 million representations, and consulted 25 Waqf Boards and several state governments.
“There has been an unprecedented level of consultation. It's not the case that this was done behind closed doors,” he said. Suggestions from stakeholders were either included or reasonably set aside.
The SG referred to the long-standing misuse of the waqf-by-user concept to claim public or private lands without proper documentation. He noted that the first legislation to address this issue dates back to 1923.
No mass takeover of Waqf properties: Centre
The government denied that the amended law allows mass acquisition of Waqf properties. Mehta said, “There is no wholesale capturing. The designated officer cannot take possession. At best, the revenue entry changes, which itself is subject to challenge and appeal.”
He added that simply entering a property in the Waqf register does not give ownership and cited case laws allowing the government to protect public land even if wrongly listed as Waqf.
