Skip to main content

Supreme Court Questions Key Provisions of Waqf Amendment Act 2025, Hints at Interim Stay


The Supreme Court of India raises concerns over the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, particularly the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards, de-notification of Waqf properties, and collector’s powers in disputes. A possible interim stay is expected.

supreme-court-waqf-amendment-act-2025

Supreme Court Considers Stay on Key Provisions of Waqf Amendment Act 2025

New Delhi, April 17, 2025 – The Supreme Court today expressed serious concerns over several controversial provisions of the recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Among the most debated issues were the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards, de-notification of Waqf properties, and the empowerment of district collectors to adjudicate Waqf disputes.

A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, alongside Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, indicated the possibility of an interim stay on select provisions of the law. The matter will be heard again tomorrow at 2 PM.

Key Issues Raised in Supreme Court

1. Waqf by User and Property De-Notification

  • The Court questioned the removal of “waqf by user”—where properties are used historically for Islamic purposes without formal registration.

  • CJI Khanna warned: “If waqf by user is denotified, there are grave ramifications.”

  • The Bench signaled a likely interim order protecting properties already declared Waqf by courts.

2. Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Boards

  • The 2025 Amendment permits non-Muslims to be appointed to the Central Waqf Council and state Waqf Boards.

  • In a pointed exchange, the Court asked: “Would you allow Muslims on Hindu endowment boards?”

  • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court that no more than two non-Muslims would be appointed, aside from ex-officio members.

3. Collector’s Role in Waqf Disputes

  • The amended law grants district collectors the authority to resolve Waqf disputes.

  • Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued this violates the constitutional principle of impartial adjudication, stating: “A collector is a judge in his own cause.”

Heated Exchange: Religion vs. Role

A fiery courtroom exchange between CJI Khanna and SG Mehta underscored the debate’s sensitivity:

  • CJI: “When we sit here, we lose our religion. Both sides are equal before us.”

  • SG Mehta (sarcastically): “Then this Bench also cannot hear the case.”

Petitioners’ Stand

Top advocates challenged the law on constitutional and religious grounds:

  • Kapil Sibal: The Act violates Article 26 – the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.

  • Abhishek Manu Singhvi: “Four out of eight lakh Waqfs are based on user. Their de-notification could have a huge impact.”

  • Huzefa Ahmadi: Criticized the clause requiring proof of five years of Islamic practice to establish a Waqf, calling it vague and discriminatory.

Government's Defence

The Centre, represented by SG Mehta, defended the law:

  • The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 was passed after 38 sessions of Parliament and scrutiny of 98.2 lakh public suggestions.

  • Mehta contended that registration of Waqf properties was always mandatory, even under the original Waqf Act 1995.

Supreme Court May Issue Interim Order

The Bench indicated it may issue a balancing interim order, possibly including:

  • Preventing de-notification of Waqf properties already upheld by courts.

  • Allowing collectors to proceed with cases but not enforce their decisions.

  • Restricting non-Muslim membership in Waqf bodies.

Background: What Is the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025?

The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 aims to regulate Islamic charitable endowments more strictly, modifying the Waqf Act of 1995.
It has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including:

  • Congress MP Mohammad Jawed

  • AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi

The petitioners allege the law violates religious freedom, targets the Muslim community, and gives excessive control to state machinery. On the other hand, six BJP-ruled states have supported the law.

What’s Next?

The hearing resumes tomorrow at 2 PM, with the Supreme Court likely to pass an interim ruling. The outcome may have a significant impact on religious rights, property law, and the autonomy of religious institutions in India.


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