[Breaking] Supreme Court Hears Challenge To Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025; Says Ongoing Violence Is 'Disturbing'

Sibal specifically referred to Article 26, and stated that the phrase “in accordance with law” could not be used to take away essential religious practices. He submitted that he was challenging the following:

• Section 3(r) and the proviso to Section 3, which provided that existing waqf by user would remain as waqf unless it was disputed or declared government property;
• Section 3(A)(2), which stated that creation of waqf-alal-aulad shall not deny inheritance to women.
• Section 3(C), under which government property identified or declared as waqf would not be deemed so after the Act commenced. He pointed out the absence of a time limit for such declaration and noted, “You have identified an officer who is the officer of the government. This is per se unconstitutional.”
• The clause declaring protected monuments or waqf as void.

CJI responded, “If it’s declared as waqf before it was declared an ancient monument, it will remain waqf. You should not be objecting unless after it’s declared as protected, it cannot be declared as waqf.” He clarified that ancient monuments like Jama Masjid would remain protected.

CJI observed that Parliament had enacted laws regulating inheritance for Hindus as well and noted that Article 26 is secular and applies to all communities. Sibal countered, “Inheritance in Islam happens after death. They are interfering before that.”

Sibal highlighted that the amendment resulted in a “complete takeover through nomination,” arguing that under the 1995 Act, both Sections 9 and 14 required Muslim representation. He also raised concerns under Section 36 about the abolition of waqf-by-user, saying it was a recognized religious practice. “Suppose it’s my own property, and I want to use it. I don’t want to register. Waqf by user is abolished,” he said.

CJI asked, “What is the problem with registration?” to which Sibal responded that old waqf might not have documentation, “If a waqf is created 3000 years ago, they will ask for deed.”

Referring to Section 7A, Sibal said it would take 20 years to establish a claim. CJI questioned whether the Collector’s decision was amenable to court’s jurisdiction, to which Sibal said the section was silent. Solicitor General Mehta countered that it was specifically allowed.

Sibal further objected to the new limitation period of two years under Section 61, arguing that many waqf properties were not registered and the new rule would bar rightful claims.

CJI remarked, “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.” He reiterated that historical religious structures like Jama Masjid were created by user.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi challenged the new definition in Section 3(r), saying it changed the meaning of who is “practicing Islam.” He warned that it effectively suspended fundamental rights for five years. “Are they going to tell me, Mr Ahmadi, you don’t practice five times a day?” he asked, calling the provision vague.

SG Mehta started his submissions by stating that that the amendments had come after extensive consultations. A Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) held 38 sittings, visited multiple cities, and received 98.2 lakh representations. He said the definition of waqf by user was contentious but clarified that registration had always been mandatory. “Even under the 1995 Act, waqf by user had to be registered. Mr Sibal says mutawalli will go to jail — he’s going to jail since 1995 if registration isn’t done,” Mehta said.

CJI raised concerns about old mosques established centuries ago. “You require them to produce a sale deed? It’s impossible,” he said.

Mehta asked what had prevented them from registering earlier. Justice Viswanathan asked what would happen if the Collector claimed government ownership over a property. Mehta replied that the Collector was merely a revenue officer and any dispute could still be adjudicated.

CJI said, “If you are going to denotify waqf-by-user properties, it will be an issue.” He also warned, “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.”

Mehta admitted, “I don’t know why those words have come. Ignore that part.” He added that many Muslims now wanted to avoid the Muslim Board and could create trusts instead.

CJI pointed out, “There are issues concerning the past waqf by user.”

Mehta rejected Sibal’s argument that it was a complete usurpation by the Centre and said Section 9 of the 1995 Act always allowed Central Government nominations. He began reading the composition of the Board.

At this stage, CJI asked sharply, “Mr Mehta, are you saying that from now on you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly!”

CJI noted, “So as per the Act, 8 members are Muslims. 2 judges may not be Muslims. Then the rest are non-Muslims.”

SG Mehta responded, “Then this bench also cannot hear the case.”

CJI replied, “What! When we sit over here, we lose our religion. For us, both sides are the same. How can you compare it with the judges? Why not have non-Muslims also in the advisory board of Hindu endowments then?”

CJI asked, “Are you ready to make a statement before the Court… that maximum two apart from the two ex officio members will be non-Muslims?”

SG replied, “I can put it on affidavit.”

CJI pointed out, “When a public trust is declared to be a waqf 100 or 200 years ago… suddenly you say it is being taken over by the Waqf Board and declared otherwise.”

SG responded, “That is not correct. What it means is that if you have a waqf and can make a trust instead… you can do it… this is an enabling provision.”

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 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