Centre Seeks Limiting Arguments In Pleas Challenging Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 To Three Points At Interim Stage, Hearing To Continue Tomorrow

The matter was being heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the Court had previously framed three specific issues for consideration and that the Union has already filed its affidavit in response. He contended that the petitioners’ written submissions exceed this scope.

“I have filed my affidavit strictly in response to the originally framed three issues. Therefore, I respectfully request that the proceedings be confined to those three issues alone,” he submitted.

The three issues, as noted by the SG, are:

1. Whether properties declared as Waqf—either by usage or deed—should continue to be treated as such pending adjudication.
2. Whether the proviso introduced by the Amendment—excluding Waqf character during the Collector’s inquiry into government land—ought to be kept in abeyance.
3. Whether all members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council, excluding ex-officio members, must necessarily be Muslims.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the Petitioners, objected to the narrowing of the hearing’s scope, stating, “The then Chief Justice had said that interim relief would be considered. At this stage, it is not open to say the hearing should be confined to only three issues. This case concerns the larger issue of the capture of Waqf lands.”

Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi added, “The matter cannot be heard in a piecemeal fashion.”

Submissions by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal

Sibal submitted that the 2025 Amendment fundamentally alters the Waqf framework and facilitates executive control over properties long governed by religious law. “Private properties are being taken over merely on the basis of a dispute, the nature of which is often unknown. An officer senior to the Collector is appointed to look into the matter, and in the meantime, the property is taken away”, he submitted.

In response to a query from the CJI as to whether this happens without due process, Sibal asserted that it does.

He explained the religious significance of such properties, “Waqf properties are dedicated to God, to be used by generations for religious or charitable purposes. These are maintained through community contributions, there are no earnings. People come to bury their dead and pay a nominal charge for maintenance.”

The CJI Gavai observed that temples and dargahs operate similarly. Sibal responded, “Dargahs and mosques are distinct. Their preservation depends on active community involvement. What they’re suggesting is that if there’s encroachment, the very nature of the Waqf property changes.”

Sibal traced the legislative history from 1913 to 2025, arguing that the new law marks a complete departure from foundational concepts of waqf by user and dedication. He submitted, “Under the previous Act, registration was mandatory, but the absence of registration did not strip the property of its Waqf character.”

The CJI noted that the 2013 Act used the word "shall" for registration but no penalty or consequence was prescribed for non-registration, except potential action against the Mutawalli (caretaker). He stated, "Under the 2013 Act, there was a provision mandating the registration of Waqf properties, but no specific consequences were prescribed for non-compliance except for the possible removal of the Mutawalli."

Sibal confirmed this interpretation and said the 2025 Amendment is the first to affect the character of the property itself due to non-registration.

Regarding waqf by user, Sibal stated that under past practice, such waqfs did not require registration. The CJI recorded, "Waqf by user prior to 2013 was not required to be registered."

Citing the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Acts of 1904 and 1958, Sibal submitted that earlier laws allowed preservation without interfering with ownership. However, the 2025 law permits the takeover and transfer of ownership, particularly of religious sites.

When the CJI asked if this meant worship would be prevented at such sites, he observed: “Shall we record that the question is whether a declaration of a site as an ancient or protected monument under the 1904 and 1958 Acts also strips away your right to practice your faith?”

Urging the Court to protect prominent monuments of archaeological value, Sibal submitted, “One important point l urge the Court to consider is the list of protected monuments from the Archaeological Survey of India's website. Once these sites are declared protected monuments, they effectively lose their original character as Waqf properties. This includes prominent sites like Jama Masjid and Sambhal.”

“Consider the scale and impact— this is only a partial list; we received just some of it. The extent is deeply troubling. Furthermore, Sections 3(D) and 3(E) were introduced in Parliament through a vote-they were neither part of the original Bill nor discussed before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). There was no prior debate on these provisions”, he added.

Sibal Concluded, “From Section. 9 to 14, the very scheme suggests you want to exclude us … The Creation of Waqf is not a secular Act.”

Arguments by Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Singhvi submitted that the issue of providing proof of practising Islam was arbitrary and vague. He stated, “Section 3(r) requires proof of practising Islam, and uses the troubling term 'contrivance', leading to vague, arbitrary, and endless government office visits. Religious endowments exist in all faiths, no other religion demands proof of adherence or practice before recognising such endowments. This provision violates Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, both textually and in spirit.”

Singhvi further submitted, "Clause 3(D) of the 2025 Amendment risks circumventing the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, by superimposing the new provisions onto the Ancient Monuments Act, thereby potentially affecting places of worship protected under the 1991 Act."

On the issue of surge in waqf properties, Singhvi stated, “On the alleged surge in waqf properties, the counter-argument is that the large increase is due to the portal for listing waqf properties starting in 2013, as mentioned in my rejoinder. The database was gradually populated, and this updation exercise is being mistaken as an actual increase in properties.”

Apart from Dr. Singhvi and Sibal, Senior Advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Huzefa Ahmadi also made brief submissions on behalf of the Petitioners.

The Court will continue hearing the matter tomorrow, when the Centre will put forward its arguments.

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."

Cause Title: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (W.P.(C) No. 276/2025)