Read What Two State Waqf Boards And Three States Submitted In Support Of The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025

A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard detailed submissions from various stakeholders, including senior counsel representing three State Governments and two State Waqf Boards.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, submitted that the doctrine of prescription and adverse possession was historically used to recognise waqf by user in India and that it was not introduced as an Islamic principle. He said that the principle does not exist outside India. He said that after Independence, this concept was expanded statutorily under the 1954 Act to cover all religious and charitable purposes.
“In the 1995 Act, the concept of limitation was removed,” he noted, addressing the petitioners’ contention that the amendment would impact the Places of Worship Act. He contended that waqf by user had been continuously expanded through legislation.
Responding to the challenge under Article 14, comparing the present Amendment Act with the Hindu Religious Endowment laws of various states, he asserted, “There is no question of applying Article 14 to compare a parliamentary law with state laws. There is a presumption of validity.” He added that this presumption stems from constitutional principles, not merely the Evidence Act, as Parliament acts as the sovereign voice of the people. “A very strong case must be made out ex facie,” he argued.

Senior Advocate Ranjeet Kumar for a Tribal Organisation and Haryana

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh for Orissa

Maninder Singh, appearing for the State of Orissa in support of the Central Government, submitted that he is adopting the arguments made in support of the new law.

Senior Advocate Gurukrishna Kumar for MP Waqf Board

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for Waqf Board

He raised a second submission that under Section 25(2)(a), the State can legislate on secular aspects like economic and political matters, and if the petitioners have an Article 25 claim regarding religious practices, that issue has been referred to a nine judge bench (Sabarimala case).
“This issue is already referred to a nine-judge bench,” he submitted. The Solicitor General, however, clarified that he was not supporting that line of argument.
Sankaranarayanan urged the Court to consider whether interim relief should be granted, especially when questions surrounding the Shree Shrur Mutt case have been referred to a larger bench.

Solicitor General concludes arguments for Union of India

Yesterday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta started his arguments on behalf of the Centre and contended that a waqf by user is not a fundamental right, but one conferred by statute.

On the issue of essential religious practice, Mehta said, “It was never claimed to be essential, it was a statutorily recognised practice, and such recognition can be withdrawn.”
He also defended recent administrative changes, such as removing the requirement for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a Waqf Board to be a Muslim. “It’s an enabling provision, it does not restrict appointment,” he said. However, for the Executive Officer under Section 38, he noted, the requirement still stands since that official deals directly with the waqf.
On misuse concerns, he pointed out that even in 1923, waqfs were sometimes used to defraud creditors. “That’s why there's now a five-year requirement to ensure the donor is a practising Muslim,” he said, while clarifying that non-Muslims may still donate to waqfs under Section 71.
He also argued that applying the Limitation Act uniformly cannot, by itself, justify staying the Act. On evacuee property and other legacy issues under Section 108, Mehta said these are largely academic challenges.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Huzefa Ahmadi made submissions in rejoinder on behalf of the Petitioners.

The Court has now reserved its order on the plea for interim relief.

On May 15, the Court had clarified, "We will not consider any request to hear a challenge against provisions of 1995 Act...We are making it clear...Just because 2025 Act is considered here...cannot make those points now...". The Court made the said observation while Counsel for parties challenging provisions of the 1995 Act, as well as the 2025 amendment, as violative of the rights of people of other religions, sought allocation of time to make submissions on the next date.

On April 17, 2025, the Court had recorded the Centre's statement that during the pendency of the matter, no appointments would be made to the Waqf Boards or the Central and State Waqf Councils under Sections 9 and 14 of the Act.

The Court has now reserved its decision on the issue of the interim stay on the Act.