In a high-stakes legal fight, the Centre has assured the Supreme Court it won’t enforce disputed provisions of the new Waqf law, including appointments and de-notification of properties—at least until the next hearing.
By PC Bureau
The Central government informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that it will not enforce certain contentious provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025—at least for the time being. The assurance came during a hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the new law.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s statement that no appointments would be made to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards under the amended Act until further orders. Mehta also assured the Court that properties already declared as waqf—whether through government notification or court judgment—would not be de-notified or altered in status while the case is sub judice.
The Court granted the Centre seven days to submit a formal reply to the petitioners’ request for an interim stay on the law. Petitioners may file their rejoinders within five days thereafter. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on May 5, with the Bench indicating it may issue interim directions at that time to preserve the existing legal position.
READ: Black-Market Fuel and Unsafe Roads Choke Life in Manipur’s Hills ( Part-1)
The petitions—filed by several individuals and public figures including Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi—have challenged the new law on the grounds that it violates the fundamental rights of the Muslim community, particularly their right to manage religious affairs under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The petitioners argued that the amendments disproportionately target Muslim religious endowments, and that several of the Act’s provisions could erode the historical and religious identity of longstanding waqf properties.
Petitions challenging validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 | Supreme Court takes on record the statement of Solicitor General that Centre will respond within seven days. SC says, Solicitor General assures the court that no appointments will be made to the Council and Board.… pic.twitter.com/268WDzhvIT
— ANI (@ANI) April 17, 2025
The amended Act, passed by the Lok Sabha on April 3 and the Rajya Sabha on April 4, received Presidential assent on April 5. It introduces several sweeping changes to the 1995 Waqf Act, including the exclusion of “waqf by user”—a provision that had allowed recognition of mosques, graveyards, and other religious properties based on long-term usage, even if formal waqf deeds were absent.
The Court expressed concern over the removal of this concept, noting that many Islamic religious sites in India predate colonial-era documentation laws. “Before the British came, we did not have any registration or Transfer of Property Act. Many masjids will be in the 14th or 15th century,” Chief Justice Khanna observed, citing the example of Delhi’s historic Jama Masjid.
READ: CFSL Report on Biren Singh’s Voice Ready, SC to Take it on May 5
The Bench also questioned the new powers given to District Collectors to determine whether a property is waqf in case of disputes. “Is that fair? The moment the Collector starts deciding it, it stops being waqf,” the Court remarked.
Another point of contention is the amended Act’s provision allowing non-Muslims to be appointed to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, a departure from the traditional composition of these bodies. Responding to Solicitor General Mehta’s defense of the provision, the Chief Justice shot back, “Are you saying that from now on, you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly!” He added sharply, “When we sit here, we lose our religion. Both sides are the same for us.”
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, CU Singh, and Rajeev Dhavan argued that the law imposes unconstitutional restrictions on the Muslim community’s ability to manage their own religious institutions. They also objected to the new five-year requirement for Muslims to establish a waqf and mandatory re-registration of all existing waqf properties, claiming such conditions would invalidate numerous historic endowments.
Meanwhile, six BJP-ruled states—Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam—have filed intervention applications in support of the amendment, arguing that vast tracts of land have been arbitrarily declared as waqf in the past, often without adequate documentation. These states claim that the amended law brings much-needed clarity and accountability.
READ: Trump, Yunus Among TIME’s 100 Most Influential Leaders of 2025; No Indian Nationals Featured
Although Solicitor General Mehta urged the Court not to stay the provisions based on a preliminary reading, the Bench stated that a complete change in the status quo would be undesirable while the matter is under judicial consideration. The Court signaled it would issue a limited interim order halting any appointments or changes to the status of waqf properties declared under the 1995 law.
“No appointment of board or council can take place. And if registration has taken place under the 1995 Act, then those properties cannot be disturbed,” Chief Justice Khanna clarified.
Reassuring the Bench, Mehta responded: “The appointment of board is in my hand. It will not happen.” He further stated that any appointments made by state governments in the meantime would be treated as void.
The case is poised for further hearing on May 5, when the Court is expected to deliberate on interim relief and issue appropriate directions pending a final ruling.
