Waqf Act row: No fresh appointments or de-notification of existing waqfs, Centre assures SC

New Delhi, April 17: The Supreme Court on Thursday recorded the undertaking given by the Union government that no fresh members would be appointed to waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council in terms of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, till the next date of hearing, and asked it to file its preliminary reply within seven days.

In its interim order, a bench, headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, recorded the assurance given by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the second highest law officer of the Centre, that the status of existing waqfs, including waqf by user, will not be changed or identified.

The Bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, asked the Centre to file its reply to the petitions seeking stay and challenging the validity of the recent amendments introduced to the Waqf Act, 1995, within a period of seven days.

In view of the multiplicity of the petitions, the apex court told the petitioners to choose five lead pleas to be decided by the apex court, adding that the other petitions may be treated as applications and deemed to be disposed of.

The apex court directed its registry to rename the matter as "In Re: Waqf Amendment Act".

It also ordered the appointment of nodal counsel to facilitate the filing of pleadings and written submissions before the apex court.

The matter is likely to be listed next on May 5 for further hearing.

During the course of the hearing, SG Mehta urged the apex court not to pass any stay order, saying that the amendment was brought after taking into account various suggestions and representations across the country.

"The government is answerable to people. Villages and villages were taken as waqf. It (The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025) is a considered piece of legislation. Petitions were filed before Presidential assent," he said.

"If your lordships are going to stay a statutory provision, it by itself is rare," he added. Further, SG Mehta contended that passing of an interim order is a "harsh step" and the Centre should be allowed to file its preliminary reply to explain the rationale behind introducing the amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995.

Urging the top court to defer the proceedings to allow the Centre to file its preliminary reply, he said that he would make a statement on behalf of the non-appearing states that if they make any fresh appointment to a Waqf Board, the same would be void.

On Wednesday, the CJI Khanna-led Bench indicated that it would pass an interim order but deferred the proceedings after SG Mehta urged that the Union government should be given a hearing before any interim order is passed.

Multiple petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the recent amendments introduced in the Waqf Act, 1995.

After the legislation was passed by Parliament in the first week of April, the Congress announced it will challenge the Waqf (Amendment) Bill (now an Act after the Presidential assent) before the Supreme Court, claiming that it was an attack on the basic structure of the Constitution and was aimed at "polarising" and "dividing" the country on the basis of religion. On the other hand, the government said that crores of poor Muslims will benefit from this legislation, and in no way does it harm any single Muslim.

In his petition filed before the apex court, Congress MP and party whip in Lok Sabha Mohammad Jawed contended that the amendments violated Articles 14 (right to equality), 25 (freedom to practice and propagate religion), 26 (freedom of religious denominations to manage their religious affairs), 29 (minority rights), and 300A (right to property) of the Constitution. Another plea filed by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi said the impugned amendments are "ex facie violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 300A of the Constitution of India and manifestly arbitrary".

Several others, including the Association for Protection of Civil Rights, AAP leader Amanatullah Khan, Maulana Arshad Madani of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), the Indian Union Muslim League, Taiyyab Khan Salmani, and Anjum Kadari, have filed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the provision.

In response to the petitions seeking a stay on the implementation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Union government haf filed a caveat, or notice submitted to a court by a party to a litigation who wishes to be heard before any order is likely to be issued on the opponent's plea, in the Supreme Court. Also, several BJP-ruled states, including Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Assam, and Uttarakhand, have approached the Supreme Court seeking to defend the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

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

Rajesh K.

Glad to see the SC maintaining balance here. Both sides getting fair hearing. The government's assurance shows they're willing to cooperate with judicial process. Let's see how this develops.

S

Sameera A.

As a Muslim, I'm concerned about how this will affect our community institutions. The Waqf system has helped fund schools and hospitals for decades. Hope the court considers this history 🙏

P

Priya M.

While I support reforms, the government should have consulted more stakeholders before rushing amendments. The legal challenges show this needed more deliberation. Good that SC is giving proper time.

A

Amit S.

The SG makes valid points about villages being taken as waqf. There should be transparency in how these lands are managed. The amendment might bring needed accountability. Let's wait for full hearing.

F

Fatima Z.

Why is Congress making this political? If the Act helps poor Muslims as claimed, shouldn't they support it? Sometimes opposition opposes just for the sake of it 🤷‍♀️

V

Vikram J.

The legal arguments seem complex but important. Articles 14, 25, 26 all being cited shows this touches fundamental rights. SC should take its time - no need for hasty decisions on such sensitive matters.

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