In a packed courtroom echoing with hushed anticipation, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to stay the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, was hearing over a dozen petitions challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the law. The petitioners, including senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, A.M. Singhvi, C.U. Singh and Huzefa Ahmadi, argued that the new provisions struck at the heart of religious freedom and property rights of the Muslim community.
The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, stood firm, defending the legislation as a long-overdue overhaul aimed at curbing encroachment and streamlining administration of waqf properties.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court rejects Ila Gupta's appeal over Vasundhara flat ownership dispute
Background of the Dispute
The core of the petitioners challenge lay in the sweeping changes brought by the 2025 amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995. They claimed the law dismantled longstanding concepts like 'Waqf by user' - which allowed recognition of religious endowments through long usage - and introduced stringent conditions such as mandatory five years’ practice of Islam to create waqf, compulsory registration with deeds, and exclusion of properties belonging to Scheduled Tribes.
Sibal argued passionately that the,
"Real intention is to expropriate waqf properties under the guise of reform," warning that the new regime could erase centuries-old religious sites.
He highlighted how the new Section 3C lets a state-appointed officer unilaterally declare any property as government land, instantly stripping it of waqf status.
"It leaves the community high and dry, running from pillar to post," he remarked.
Dhavan and Singhvi added that the Act allows non-Muslims to dominate Waqf Boards and abolishes oral waqfs, calling it "a wholesale takeaway of the community’s rights."
Read also:- Delhi High Court Weighs Karan Johar's Plea to Protect Personality Rights Amid Misuse Allegations
Courtroom Arguments and Exchanges
The Solicitor General, however, countered with examples of alleged abuse, citing the Andhra Pradesh case where 1,654 acres of government land were claimed as waqf by user.
"The State has a duty to protect public land,” he asserted.
Mehta insisted the law merely regulates secular aspects like finances and records, not religious rituals. He also clarified that at most four non-Muslims could be on the Central Waqf Council, and only two on state boards.
"This is about cleaning up administration, not curbing faith," he told the bench.
When the petitioners alleged that new rules would bar religious use of protected monuments, Mehta pointed to existing provisions under the Ancient Monuments Act safeguarding customary worship. He stressed the amendments were prospective and backed by Joint Parliamentary Committee deliberations.
Still, the petitioners pressed hard on constitutional grounds, saying the law violated Articles 14, 15, 25, 26 and 300A.
"You are forcing five years of religious proof on one community alone. No other religion faces this," Singhvi said, shaking his head.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Orders Against Pharma Firm, Flags Misuse of Section 74 Powers
Court's Observations
The bench appeared cautious, repeatedly noting the high threshold for halting a law passed by Parliament. “There is always a presumption of constitutionality,” the Chief Justice reminded. He recited settled principles: that courts intervene only if a statute is beyond legislative power or blatantly violates fundamental rights.
The Judges also pointed out that no individual directly affected by the amendments had approached the court yet - most petitions were public interest litigations.
"The court cannot strike down a law merely because it is unpopular or inconvenient," the bench observed, adding,
"If two views are possible, one constitutional and one not, the former must prevail."
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses multiple petitions after counsel withdraws citing lack of instructions
Decision of the Supreme Court
Ultimately, the bench refused to grant interim relief. It declined to stay the operation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, allowing it to remain in force while the constitutional challenges are examined in detail at the final hearing.
"The petitioners have not shown a prima facie case that the provisions are ex-facie unconstitutional or beyond Parliament’s power," the order stated, underlining that the presumption of validity stands.
The court signalled it will take up the matter for final arguments later this year.
With that, the hearing ended - the law survives for now, but the storm around it is far from over.
Bench: CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih
Case Title: In Re: The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025
Case No.:- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2025
