The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on September 15 its decision on the issue of an interim order on a batch of petitions seeking stay on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
A two-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and including Justice Augustine George Masih who had reserved the order on May 22, will pronounce the decision.
A batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act was filed before the apex court, contending that it was discriminatory towards the Muslim community and violates their fundamental rights.
President Droupadi Murmu on April 5 gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was earlier passed by Parliament after heated debates in both Houses -- Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
During the hearing in May, the Union of India (UOI), through its senior law officer Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, had submitted to the apex court that the waqf management had misused monuments, giving rooms for shops and making unauthorised alterations.
The submission of Mehta was vehemently opposed by senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for some petitioners. He had argued that there are other laws which deal with such issues. "You cannot take my right over the waqf property because of these issues,” Sibal had stated.
The Centre, while strongly defending the Amendment Act, submitted that there was no ground for staying a “validly enacted statute” by the competent legislature. “The very fact that the court has to hear the batch of pleas for interim stay for three days, shows there is nothing ex-facie unconstitutional with the law. Mere legal arguments are insufficient to stay the statute. There is no ground for staying a validly enacted statute by the competent legislature," Mehta argued before the top court.
He had submitted that creating a waqf is different from donating to a waqf, which is why there is a five years practice requirement for Muslims so that waqf is not used for defrauding someone. "Suppose I am a Hindu and I want to donate to a waqf, it can be done. How can a non-Muslim be allowed to create a waqf. He can always donate to a waqf," said Mehta.
Delving into the batch of pleas that these were filed without any proper materials to support, Mehta had argued that three days of hearings had revealed no ex-facie evidence of unconstitutionality. He said that mere legal propositions or hypothetical arguments do not justify halting the operation of a law duly enacted by Parliament.
On the other hand, Sibal -- opposing these submissions of Mehta -- had asked if waqfs used for religious purposes can be stripped of the status, merely for being unregistered. "Can the government for its own fault of not conducting surveys now claim waqf properties as government land by a legislative fiat," Sibal had questioned.
Senior lawyer Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the state of Rajasthan, supported the 2025 Act. He said that ‘waqf by user’ is not a core practice of Islam, as it did not involve any formal dedication. It was merely a way of holding land as waqf through adverse possession.
Senior advocate Ranjeet Kumar, appearing for the Haryana government and a tribal organisation supporting the 2025 Amendments, said in Rajasthan, a waqf claim was made over a 500-acre land given for mining purposes.
Mehta had said that the dedication of land as waqf is permanent and irreversible. Therefore, land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes (STs) cannot be dedicated as waqf.
"The state restricts the alienation of tribal land to protect tribal communities. Otherwise, anyone could become a mutawalli (Manager of Waqf property) and misuse the waqf to their detriment," the Centre's law officer had contended.
Mehta further had argued that Muslim tribals are being victimised. “There may be differing points of view,” he says, “but that cannot be a ground to stay the operation of a duly enacted law.”
The apex court was hearing five petitions -- out of more than 100 -- after noting that it was impossible to hear all the pleas in the matter, as more or less, the prayers were strikingly similar.
The Centre on April 25 had defended the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, as a valid, lawful exercise of legislative power. While filing a detailed reply in the Supreme Court, the Union had requested it to dismiss the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of it.
"It is a settled position in law that the constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision, either directly or indirectly, and will decide the matter finally," said the Centre, in its reply filed before the top court.
The Centre said that shockingly after 2013, there was an addition of over 20 lakh hectares (precisely 20,92,072.536) in Waqf land. "Right before even Mughal era, pre-independence era and post-independence era, the total of waqfs created was 18,29,163.896 acres of land in India," said the Centre, through its affidavit filed in the top court.
"For the last 100 years, waqf by user is recognised only upon registration and not by word of mouth. Hence, the amendment was in sync with consistent practice. There will be maximum of two non-Muslims among 22 members in the Waqf Council and Aukaf Boards, a measure that is representative of inclusiveness and not intrusive of the administration of waqfs," the Centre said.
The affidavit added that the identification of government land deliberately or wrongly mentioned as waqf properties is to set the revenue records right and that such land cannot be treated as land belonging to any religious community.
The Centre, in its 1,332-page counter affidavit, submitted that there cannot be a "blanket stay" on the law as there was a "presumption of its constitutionality".
The Centre had submitted that the law was not violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. "The amendments are only for the regulation of the secular aspect regarding the management of the properties and hence, there was no violation of the religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution," it had said.