The Centre has strongly asserted in the Supreme Court that Waqf boards and Hindu endowment boards are fundamentally different and cannot be compared. This statement was made during hearings regarding the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The government's argument rests on the premise that while Waqf boards perform secular functions, Hindu endowment boards are primarily involved in religious activities.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, presented this argument before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih. He stated that Waqf, although an Islamic concept, is not an essential part of Islam. He elaborated that Waqf boards handle secular duties such as managing properties, ensuring proper accounting, and auditing accounts. Mehta argued that including non-Muslims on these boards would not alter their character, as they do not touch upon any religious activity.

In contrast, the SG pointed out that Hindu endowment boards exclusively deal with religious activities. He highlighted that Hindu endowment commissioners can enter temples and even supervise rituals, and the state government decides who serves as the 'Pujari' (priest). Mehta emphasized that these activities are purely religious, unlike the functions of Waqf boards.

The Centre's stance addresses a key argument from petitioners challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The petitioners questioned why non-Muslims are being included in Waqf boards when non-Hindus are not allowed in Hindu endowment boards. The government countered that this comparison is flawed because the nature of activities and the scope of these institutions differ significantly.

Furthermore, the SG addressed concerns about the potential for non-Muslims to form a majority in Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council. He presented documents, including a written assurance from the Ministry of Minority Affairs to the Joint Parliamentary Committee and an affidavit in the Supreme Court, assuring that these bodies would always maintain their minority character, with Muslims forming an overwhelming majority of members.

The Waqf Act, 1995, along with its amendments, governs the administration of Waqf properties in India. A Waqf is a permanent dedication of movable or immovable properties for religious, pious, or charitable purposes as recognized by Muslim Law. These properties are managed by state Waqf Boards, which have the power to acquire, hold, and transfer property. The boards are responsible for ensuring that the properties are properly maintained, controlled, and administered, and that the income is duly applied to the intended purposes.

The recent amendments to the Waqf Act have sparked debate and legal challenges. One of the main points of contention is the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards. The government argues that this is permissible because the boards perform secular functions. However, critics argue that it interferes with the Muslim community's right to manage its religious affairs.

Another concern raised by petitioners is related to Section 3C of the amended Act, which deals with inquiries into whether a property is Waqf land. Critics claim that this provision gives the government excessive power to take over Waqf land. The government has clarified that the inquiry is only to make an entry in the revenue records and does not affect the question of title, which will be determined by the court.

The Centre has also stated that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, was enacted to curb the misuse of Waqf provisions and prevent the encroachment of private and government properties. The government noted a significant increase in "auqaf area" after the previous amendment to the Waqf Act in 2013, which it says necessitated the new legislation.

The Supreme Court has been hearing arguments from both sides and has not yet issued any interim orders. The hearing is expected to continue, with the Centre concluding its arguments and the petitioners providing a rebuttal. The court's decision will have significant implications for the management of Waqf properties and the relationship between religious institutions and the state in India.