The Supreme Court of India on May 20, 2025, commenced hearings on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, with a bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih presiding. The central question before the court is whether to grant interim relief to the petitioners, who argue that the amended act infringes upon their rights and seeks to unjustly seize Waqf properties.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court emphasized that petitioners seeking a stay on the legislation must present a "strong and glaring" case to warrant interim relief. Highlighting the presumption of constitutionality that accompanies every statute, Chief Justice Gavai stated that unless a compelling case demonstrating potential irreparable harm is established, the court would be hesitant to interfere with the law's operation.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, argued that the 2025 amendments represent a "complete departure from historical legal and constitutional principles" and serve as a means to "capture Waqf properties through a non-judicial process." Sibal asserted that the amended law enables a systematic expropriation of Waqf properties via executive actions, bypassing due judicial process, potentially leading to Waqf properties losing their status through executive orders, denying aggrieved parties access to courts. He contended that if the central and state governments are permitted to proceed under the law while the petitions are pending, the petitions would become pointless. Sibal specifically pointed to provisions allowing for the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf bodies, which he argued would dilute Muslim control over donated properties, citing the absence of non-Hindu members in Hindu religious endowments. He also raised concerns about the requirement for individuals to be practicing Muslims for five years before creating a Waqf, which he deemed discriminatory.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, countered these arguments by asserting that Waqf is a secular concept, merely involving the dedication of property, and that the law does not impinge on the essential religious practices of Muslims. He presented a 145-page note to the court, emphasizing that charity and religious dedication of property are common across all religions and have been considered a secular exercise by the Court. Mehta also quoted a 2003 Supreme Court ruling to support his argument. The Solicitor General urged the court to confine the hearing to three specific issues: the denotification of properties declared as Waqf by courts or through "Waqf by user," the composition of Waqf boards, and the process for determining whether a property is government land.
The "Waqf by user" provision, which allows properties used for religious or charitable purposes for extended periods to be treated as Waqf even without formal documentation, has been a focal point of contention. The government argues that the amended law merely de-recognizes unregistered Waqf properties, while petitioners claim that previous laws did not mandate registration, leaving many Waqf-by-user properties unregistered.
The bench adjourned the hearing until the next day, May 21, 2025, after listening to arguments for over three hours to decide on passing interim orders. The Supreme Court's decision on whether to grant interim relief will have significant implications for the regulation and management of Waqf properties in India.
