On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of India heard extensive arguments by the Union Government opposing the interim stay of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025. The hearing was conducted before Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre and asserted that the Act was passed after thorough consultations through a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which considered inputs from various stakeholders across the nation.
Read also: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea Challenging ED’s Powers Under Section 50 & 63 of PMLA
A key concern was the proviso to Section 3C, which states that a property will not be treated as Waqf until an enquiry confirms it's not government land. SG clarified:
“The only consequence is correction in revenue records. Ownership can only be decided by the court. It is not a final determination.”
CJI Gavai asked, “So it is only a paper entry?”, to which SG Mehta replied:
“It will be a paper entry. If the government wants ownership, it must file a suit for title.”
SG added that possession cannot be taken under Section 3C and any such argument is misleading.
The Solicitor General argued:
“Waqf is an Islamic concept but not an essential religious practice. It is simply charity, which exists in every religion.”
He referred to Dr. Ambedkar's distinction between social and spiritual elements in religion and cited the John Vallamattom case to support the view that not all religious practices are essential.
SG Mehta stressed that Waqf Boards perform secular functions such as managing properties, maintaining records, and auditing accounts. He said:
“Administration of property is secular. Including two non-Muslim members on the Board does not affect religious practice.”
He also compared it to Hindu endowment laws where commissioners of other religions may oversee religious institutions in states like Maharashtra and Gujarat.
Addressing waqf-by-user, SG said it was a statutory concept and not a fundamental right. He explained that:
“False narrative is being spread that waqf is being snatched. Waqf-by-user is not allowed prospectively unless registered.”
Read also: Vikas Singh Re-Elected as SCBA President for 2025-26; SC Reserves Key Posts for Women
Regarding registration, he emphasized that earlier Acts since 1923 required descriptions of waqfs and now, the Amendment allows six months for registration.
“Now it is not open for anyone to say waqf need not be registered.”
On May 20, several senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, and others opposed the Amendment.
Sibal argued:
“The amendment is a way to capture waqf properties through non-judicial means.”
They questioned the addition of Sections 3D and 3E, which bar waqf over protected monuments and Scheduled Tribe areas, respectively. SG responded:
“These are constitutional protections. No ST individual has challenged it. It’s an academic issue.”
Previously, the Supreme Court proposed interim directions to prevent de-notification of court-declared waqf properties and suggested that only Muslims, except ex-officio members, be on Waqf Boards. SG assured that existing waqf lands won't be affected and no new appointments would be made to the Boards till further orders.
The petitions challenge multiple provisions including:
- Removal of waqf-by-user
- Inclusion of non-Muslims in Boards
- Limit of two women members
- Requirement of five years as practising Muslim to create waqf
- Application of Limitation Act
- Invalidation over ASI monuments and Scheduled Areas
The Court continues hearing the matter.
Case Details: IN RE THE WAQF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025 (1)|W.P.(C) No. 276/2025 and connected matters
