Waqf Amendment Act 2025| Supreme Court Records Centre’s Assurance On Appointments to Waqf Boards And Councils, Denotification Of Waqfs

SG Tushar Mehta urged the Court not to pass a “harsh step” and sought time to file a response. “Allow me to place within a week my preliminary reply with documents to show how this came into the picture,” he said.

CJI Khanna remarked, “Mr Mehta, we had a particular situation where infirmities are there. …Today, we do not want the situation to change. There are provisions such as five years’ practice of Islam...we are not staying that. Normally, the situation prevailing today should continue, so as to not upset the rights of parties.”

SG submitted that the Government is answerable to the people and urged that the Court should consider the full history before forming a view. “Villages and villages are taken as Waqf. It is a considered piece of legislation…Petitions were filed before assent. Lakhs of representations were received”, he submitted.

He also clarified, “We will not make any appointments. If any State makes appointments, it may be treated as void.”

On the question of ‘Waqf by user’, the SG submitted, “If your lordship says something about Waqf by user, it will have consequences.”

The CJI clarified, “Appointment of Boards and Councils, Waqf in use already declared as registered in terms of Section 36 of the 1995 Act and not in terms of 2025 Act… we don’t want the position to change…”

The Court directed that the Union of India and the Waqf Boards file their responses within seven days and rejoinders within five days. It further directed that, until the next hearing, no appointments shall be made to the Waqf Boards or the Central and State Waqf Councils under Sections 9 and 14. It was also ordered that Waqf properties, including those declared or registered as Waqf by User, shall remain undisturbed and no denotifications or alterations shall take place.

The Bench clarified that only five writ petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, will be considered, and all other petitions will be treated as disposed of.

While hearing the matter yesterday, the CJI expressed concern about the ongoing violence, remarked, “Violence that is taking place is very disturbing... If the matter is pending here, it should not happen.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the amendments sought through Parliamentary legislation interfere with the “essential and integral part of Islamic faith.” He referred to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, arguing, “What is sought through Parliamentary legislation is to interfere with essential and integral part of faith.” He added, "The phrase ‘in accordance with law’ cannot be used to take away essential religious practices.”

Sibal challenged several provisions, including:

• Section 3(r) and the proviso to Section 3, stating that the existing waqf by user will remain unless disputed or declared government property;
• Section 3A(2), which provides that waqf-alal-aulad shall not deny inheritance to women;
• Section 3C, under which government property identified or declared as waqf would not be deemed so after the Act commences;
• The clause declaring protected monuments or waqf as void;
• Section 36, which abolishes waqf-by-user without registration;
• Section 7A, where Sibal noted it would take “20 years to establish a claim”;
• Section 61, introducing a two-year limitation for raising waqf claims, which Sibal said would bar rightful claims due to lack of prior registration.

He objected to the requirement for registration, noting that “If a waqf is created 3000 years ago, they will ask for a deed.”

The CJI said, “We are told Delhi High Court is built on waqf land. We are not saying all waqf by user is wrong, but there is genuine concern.”

On the question of board composition, the CJI asked if Muslims would be allowed on Hindu endowment boards in return, saying: “Say it openly! Why not have non-Muslims in Hindu endowment advisory boards then?”

SG Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, submitted that the amendments followed extensive consultations, including 38 sittings of a Joint Parliamentary Committee and 98.2 lakh representations. He maintained that even under the 1995 Act, registration of waqf-by-user was required, and said, “If registration isn’t done, the mutawalli has been going to jail since 1995.”

When questioned about a clause that might override court decrees, Mehta admitted, “I don’t know why those words have come. Ignore that part.”

He added that the law does not interfere with religious sites but deals only with “property management”, and clarified that it is “an enabling provision” allowing Muslims to create trusts outside of the Waqf Board.

The CJI also cautioned, “The legislature cannot declare any judgment or decree of court as void. You can remove the basis of law but you cannot declare any judgment as not binding.”

Background

The Central Government had issued a notification stating that the provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act 14 of 2025), would come into force on April 8, 2025. This notification, issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, read, “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (14 of 2025), the Central Government hereby appoints the 8th day of April, 2025 as the date on which the provisions of the said Act shall come into force.” The Lok Sabha had passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 on April 3rd, 2025. The result of the voting was announced at 1.55 am. 288 Members of the Lok Sabha voted in favour of the Bill while 232 MPs voted against the Bill.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill was passed in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha following a marathon over 12-hour debates in both Houses, and also received President Droupadi Murmu's nod. Concluding his speech before the Bill was put to the vote, Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that the word 'secular' is being misused and that India is secular, as opposed to Pakistan and Bangladesh, because the majority in India is secular and that this fact should be acknowledged. He also dismissed the charge that the government attempts to divide Muslims in the Country and said that the Bill unites all sects in the Muslim community. “The provisions of the Waqf Board have nothing to do with the management of any mosque, temple, or religious site. It is simply a matter of property management. However, Waqf properties are managed by the Waqf Board and the Mutawalli. If someone fails to understand this basic distinction or deliberately chooses not to, then I have no solution for that,” Rijiju remarked.

A pivotal change that the Act proposes to make involves the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 rom the commencement of the Amendment Act aiming to bring resolution of disputes that have often been protracted. The Act further proposes to redefine the authority responsible for handling disputes related to encroachments on government lands by Waqf properties, shifting this responsibility to a higher state government-designated authority, as per the Joint Parliamentary Committee's (JPC) recommendations.

Some of the petitioners who have filed petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, include:

1. Mohd. Jawed (Congress)

2. Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM)

3. Amanatullah Khan (AAP)

4. Association for Protection of Civil Rights (NGO)

5. Maulana Arshad Madani (Head of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind)

6. Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema (Muslim organisation from Kerala)

7. Anjum Kadari

Cause Title: Asaduddin Owaisi Lzafeer Ahmad B. F. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 269/2025)