CJI Gavai-led Bench to hear tomorrow pleas against Waqf Amendment Act

IANS May 14, 2025 322 views

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai will preside over a significant hearing at the Supreme Court concerning the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The case highlights challenges to its constitutional validity, with a bench previously led by ex-CJI Sanjiv Khanna. Notably, the Union government has assured the retention of specific provisions amid calls for increased Waqf transparency. The upcoming hearing will address whether amendments infringe on religious practices or improve Waqf management and governance.

"The amendments aim for transparency in the management of Waqf properties." - Union Ministry of Minority Affairs
CJI Gavai-led Bench to hear tomorrow pleas against Waqf Amendment Act
New Delhi, May 14: The Supreme Court is slated to hear on Thursday a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

Key Points

1

CJI Gavai leads a key Supreme Court hearing on Waqf Act

2

Prior hearing addressed by ex-CJI Sanjiv Khanna

3

Union assures non-revision of 'Waqf by user' provisions

4

Reforms focus on transparency and governance in Waqf management

As per the cause list published on the apex court website, a 2-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih will resume hearing the matter on May 15.

Multiple petitions have been filed before the top court challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments introduced in the Waqf Act, 1995.

In the previous hearing held on May 5, a bench headed by ex-CJI Sanjiv Khanna opined that it did not intend to reserve its judgment at the interim stage in view of his impending retirement.

Adjourning the hearing, the Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, said: "We will post it before the bench of Justice Gavai on May 13 or 14."

In an earlier hearing, the top court granted a week’s time to the Centre and state governments and the Waqf Boards to file their preliminary reply. It decided to treat five writ petitions as lead cases and said that other pleas will be treated as intervention applications, apart from ordering the registry to rename the cause titles of the proceedings as "In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025".

After the apex court hinted at passing a stay order, the Union government had assured the Supreme Court that it would not de-notify provisions related to 'Waqf by user' or include non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board. In its preliminary affidavit, the Centre said that it brought amendments to prevent abuse of Waqf legislation, which resulted in the encroachment of government properties, apart from ensuring that the Waqf Boards in the country are properly administered and function with transparency.

"It is submitted that there have been reported misuse of Waqf provisions to encroach on private properties and government properties. It is really shocking to know that after the amendment brought in the year 2013, there is a 116 per cent rise in Waqf area," the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs said.

The Centre, in its reply document filed before the top court, said that it was found that most of the Waqf Boards have been functioning in the "most non-transparent manner" and have either not uploaded the details in the public domain or have uploaded partial details. It said that under the old regime, due to the absence of adequate safeguards, government properties and even private properties were declared as Waqf properties.

"The provisions of Sections 3A, 3B, and 3C take care of the said situation, which has been prevailing for several decades. It is submitted that there are startling examples whereby the government lands or even the private lands were declared as Waqf properties," it said in the affidavit.

The Union government said that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, was passed with the objective of modernising the management of Waqf properties in India through transparent, efficient and inclusive measures. It argued that the reforms introduced are directed solely at the secular and administrative aspects of Waqf institutions – such as property management, record-keeping, and governance structures – without impinging upon any essential religious practices or tenets of the Islamic faith. The concept of ‘Waqf’, rooted in Islamic laws and traditions, refers to an endowment made by a Muslim for charitable or religious purposes, such as mosques, schools, hospitals, or other public institutions.

Reader Comments

R
Rahul K.
Finally some action on Waqf properties! The 116% increase in Waqf area since 2013 is shocking indeed. Government lands being declared as Waqf properties is unacceptable. Hope the SC ensures proper transparency. 🇮🇳
P
Priya M.
This is a sensitive matter that needs careful handling. While transparency is important, we must ensure the amendments don't interfere with religious practices. The court should find a balanced approach.
A
Arjun S.
Why is this only coming to light now? The misuse has been going on for decades. Kudos to the government for finally taking action. All religious institutions should follow transparent property management rules.
N
Neha P.
As someone who works in property law, I can say the Waqf Board's functioning has been problematic for years. The amendment seems well-intentioned but needs judicial oversight to prevent overreach. Interesting case for CJI Gavai's bench!
S
Sanjay R.
The government's affidavit makes valid points about transparency, but I hope this doesn't become another political tool. The SC must ensure the amendments serve their stated purpose without hidden agendas. Jai Hind!
M
Meena T.
While I support reforms, the timing seems suspicious. Why bring this now? The court should examine whether this is genuinely about governance or has electoral motivations. Either way, transparency benefits everyone. 🤔

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Your email won't be published


Disclaimer: Comments here reflect the author's views alone. Insulting or using offensive language against individuals, communities, religion, or the nation is illegal.

Tags: