Skip to main content

Supreme Court Puts Key Waqf Act Amendments on Hold; Govt Assures No Immediate Changes


New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday recorded the Central government’s assurance that certain contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025—including the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards and the de-notification of properties previously declared as Waqf—will not be enforced for now.

A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, took note of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s statement that:

  • No new appointments will be made to Waqf Boards and Councils under the 2025 Act.

  • The status of already notified Waqf properties (including those recognized by courts as Waqf by usage) will remain unchanged.

The court granted the government seven days to file its response, after which petitioners can submit their rejoinders within five days. The next hearing is scheduled for May 5, where interim orders will be considered.

Background of the Legal Challenge

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, passed by Parliament in early April, amends the 1995 law to regulate Waqf properties—Islamic religious or charitable endowments. Petitioners, including Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi, argue that the amendments:

  • Discriminate against Muslims by selectively targeting Waqf properties.

  • Remove the concept of "Waqf by user", jeopardizing centuries-old mosques, graveyards, and charitable properties without formal deeds.

  • Grant excessive powers to District Collectors to decide Waqf disputes.

  • Allowing non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards is raising concerns over interference in religious matters.

Meanwhile, six BJP-ruled states (Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam) have supported the amendments, citing administrative concerns.

Court’s Skepticism

During Wednesday’s hearing, the bench questioned:

  • How historical Waqf properties (like the 15th-century Jama Masjid) could prove their status under the new law.

  • Why are non-Muslims being included in Waqf Boards when Hindus are not allowed in similar Hindu endowment bodies?

  • Whether District Collectors should have sweeping powers over religious property disputes.

CJI Khanna remarked, “When a public trust is declared a Waqf 100 or 200 years ago, you can’t suddenly rewrite the past.”


Today’s Hearing

SG Mehta urged the court not to impose a stay, arguing that the law was enacted after extensive consultations. However, the bench maintained that the status quo must be preserved until a final decision.

“We are not staying the entire law, but we must ensure the existing situation isn’t disturbed,” CJI Khanna said. The court clarified that no new Waqf Board appointments will be made, and already notified Waqf properties will remain protected until further orders.

The case will next be heard on May 5.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrine of Arbitrariness Under Article 14: Landmark E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Explained

Introduction Equality is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Article 14 , which guarantees “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision forms the foundation of India’s legal structure, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in applying laws. The interpretation of Article 14 evolved significantly over time, especially with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) , which introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This legal turning point  expanded the meaning of equality beyond mere classification. Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision ensures that all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender, or place of birth, are treated equally under the...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more

Coalgate Scam (2014) – Supreme Court’s Verdict on Coal Block Allocations in India

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...
Post a Comment
Read more