New Delhi, April 17: The Supreme Court on Thursday refrained from passing any interim order on the petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, after the Centre assured it would not appoint members to Waqf councils and boards or de-notify existing waqf properties — including those recognized under waqf-by-user or waqf-by-deed — until further notice.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna issued notice to the Centre, directing it to respond to the petitions within seven days. Petitioners were granted five days thereafter to file their rejoinders.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, urged the court not to stay the legislation without a full hearing. “Your Lordship is taking a harsh step… allow me to place my preliminary reply within a week with documents to show how this law came into being,” Mehta submitted. “Villages and villages are taken as waqf. It’s a considered piece of legislation. We, as the government, are answerable to the people.”
Chief Justice Khanna, while observing that the court had no intention to change the status quo, acknowledged certain concerns raised in the amendment. “Somebody asked for a complete stay, we didn’t say anything. Today, we don’t want the situation to change… There are provisions such as five years’ practice of Islam… we are not staying that,” he said. “Normally, the situation prevailing today should continue so as not to upset the rights of parties.”
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, and Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the petitioners, urged the bench to ensure protection of waqf properties, particularly those designated through waqf-by-user.
Following the exchange, the court recorded the Centre’s undertaking. “Solicitor General Tushar Mehta states that respondents will file a short reply within seven days and assures that no appointments shall be made to Waqf Boards or Councils under the 2025 Act. He further assures that no waqf, including those declared by user or gazette, shall be de-notified,” the court stated in its order.
Due to the large number of petitions — around 100 — the bench decided to hear only five, while the rest would be treated either as disposed of or as intervenors. “Only five writ petitioners to be in court from the next hearing. We only want five here. Others will be treated as either applications or as disposed of,” the court said, adding that the case will now be referred to as In Re: Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.
The court also clarified that challenges to the original Waqf Act of 1995 and its 2013 amendments will be listed separately.
The hearing followed the court’s earlier observations on Wednesday, when it suggested staying provisions that empower authorities to de-notify waqf properties, including those declared as waqf by court orders, and allowing non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards. “If a property declared as waqf-by-user is de-notified, it can have grave ramifications,” the bench noted, stressing the need to “balance the equities.”
CJI Khanna questioned the inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards: “Are you suggesting that Muslims could now be part of Hindu endowment boards as well? Please state it openly,” he told Mehta, who clarified that not more than two non-Muslim members, apart from ex-officio ones, would be included.
The controversial amendment, passed by the Lok Sabha on April 3 with 288 votes in favor and 232 against, and cleared by the Rajya Sabha in the early hours of April 4, received Presidential assent on April 5 and was notified on April 8.
Under the amended law, only self-owned property can be declared as waqf, and district collectors are tasked with verifying the ownership of land being donated. It also enables state governments to nominate members to Waqf Boards, including those from backward classes, and from both Shia and Sunni communities.
The petitions challenging the amendment were filed by leaders and organizations such as AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president Arshad Madani, RJD MP Manoj Jha, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, CPI, DMK, actor-turned-politician Vijay, and the YSRCP. They contended the Act imposes arbitrary restrictions on waqf properties, strips away protections, and undermines religious autonomy.
One petition, however, filed by Hari Shankar Jain, took the opposite stance, claiming the law grants undue privileges to Muslims while discriminating against non-Muslims.
Meanwhile, governments from BJP-ruled states — Assam, Haryana, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Maharashtra — have filed affidavits supporting the amendment.
