New Delhi [India], April 16 (ANI): The Supreme Court On Wednesday suggested that they might issue a temporary injunction to halt specific crucial aspects of the newly enacted legislation. Waqf (Amendment) Act In 2025, concerns were raised regarding the violence occurring in the Murshidabad district of West Bengal.
A panel consisting of the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, remarked, "One concerning aspect is the ongoing violence. This matter is now before us and we shall render our decision."
The bench did not issue any formal orders but proposed several suggestions. These included keeping some provisions such as incorporating non-Muslim members into the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards, retaining the collector’s authority to resolve disputes concerning Waqf properties, and maintaining regulations for reversing court-declared Waqf property statuses.
The supreme court was considering multiple appeals questioning the constitutional legitimacy of Waqf (Amendment) Act , 2025.
At the hearing, the court mentioned that they might issue a temporary order aimed at balancing the interests involved.
"The statement made was: Any property designated by the court as Waqf shall remain so without being revoked or considered non-Waqf, regardless of whether it falls under user-based Waqf or not. Furthermore, the Collector may proceed with relevant actions; however, this should occur without giving effect to the proviso clause. Concerning the Waqf Boards and Councils... individuals serving ex officio can retain their positions, whereas all other members must be Muslims," explained the bench.
CJI Khanna was ready to dictate the order, but Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the Center along with other counsel advocating for the act’s defenders, argued that they should have an opportunity to speak before any interim orders were issued.
The court subsequently scheduled the issue for an additional hearing on Thursday at 2:00 PM.
During the hearing, CJI noticed that the government cannot alter past events by amending the Waqf law, particularly since the new legislation allows for the potential removal of longstanding property designations as Waqf.
The court stated, 'When a public trust was designated as a Waqf either 100 or 200 years ago... abruptly, it is now claimed that the Waqf Board has assumed control of it and it’s been labeled differently,'
The highest court challenged the government regarding the prohibition of Waqf-by-user, noting that numerous individuals would lack the necessary documentation required for registering such Waqfs.
CJI The Solicitor General asked, “How will the government register these Waqfs-by-users? What documentation will they require? This could potentially dismantle established systems. While there certainly has been some misuse, there are also legitimate cases at hand. Reversing this would create significant issues.”
Prior to the arrival of the British, there was no system for registration. Numerous mosques were established during the 14th or 15th century. Asking these institutions to provide a certified deed would be unfeasible. In most instances, such as with the Jama Masjid in Delhi, the endowment typically falls under Waqf-by-user status. CJI added.
Regarding non-Muslim members serving on Waqf Boards and Councils, the court stated that the closest analogy can be found in the Hindu Charitable Endowments Act.
Justice Viswanathan stated, "When it concerns Hindu donations, Hindus would be responsible for managing them."
The Solicitor General stated that the oversight would be conducted by a Board that could include either Hindus or non-Hindus. Justice Kumar subsequently requested Mehta to provide an illustration and pointed out that the Tirupati temple board does not have any Hindus.
The senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, argued that when there is a disagreement over whether a property qualifies as Waqf, the decision falls to theCollector. As this official is part of the government, they would be acting as a judge in their own matter.
"Technically, this is unconstitutional. It states that property cannot be considered Waqf until an official declares otherwise. Previously, only Muslims were members of the Waqf councils and boards; however, following the amendment, Hindus may now join as well," he argued.
He went on to say that the main legislation governing Sikh Gurdwaras as well as numerous state regulations concerning Hindu religious endowments do not allow for individuals of different religions to be included on the relevant boards. "This represents a parliamentary encroachment upon the beliefs of 200 million people," Sibal stated additionally.
CJI Sibal was questioned regarding his concerns about the clauses requiring registration. The bench inquired, "Why is this problematic?"
Sibal responded that currently, Waqf-by-user can be established without registration. He added that registering a waqf would assist in maintaining a record, stating that possessing a deed would prevent any fraudulent or inaccurate claims.
Rajeev Dhavan, the senior counsel advocating for the petitioner, argued that Waqf holds significant importance within Islam since charitable acts form a crucial aspect of the religion.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned that removing 'Waqf-by-user' is risky because approximately 400,000 out of 800,000 properties fall under this category, which would be rendered unlawful with a single stroke of the pen.
"The Delhi High Court building is reportedly situated on Waqf land, as is the Oberoi hotel. While we do not claim that every property designated as Waqf-by-user is incorrect, there are indeed legitimate grounds for concern," he stated. CJI .
The Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, who represented the government, informed the Supreme Court that this legislation was established following an extensive review conducted by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). This committee organized various meetings across the nation and gathered input from all relevant parties as well as both chambers of Parliament before passing the bill after considerable deliberation.
Multiple petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court arguing against the Act, claiming that it discriminates against the Muslim community and infringes upon their constitutional rights.
On April 5, President Droupadi Murmu approved the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which had previously been debated extensively before being passed by both chambers of Parliament.
Asaduddin Owaisi, an All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) member of parliament; Mohammed Jawed and Imran Pratapgarhi from the Congress party; Mahua Moitra from the AAP; Amanatullah Khan, representing the National People's Party (India) in Manipur; Chandra Shekhar Azad, president of the Azad Samaj Party and also a member of parliament; Zia ur-Rehman Barq, a Samajwadi Party representative from Sambhal; Maulana Arshad Madani, head of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind religious group; the organization known as Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema which represents Sunni scholars in Kerala; the Social Democratic Party of India; the Indian Union Muslim League; and the civil rights protection non-governmental organization - all these entities have already submitted their appeals to the Supreme Court challenging this act.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) also contested the Act, firmly opposing the parliamentary amendments they deemed "arbitrary, discriminatory, and grounded in exclusivity."
Manoj Jha and Faiyaz Ahmad, members of parliament representing Bihar’s RJD in the Rajya Sabha, have similarly contested the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2025, arguing that it enables extensive governmental intrusion into Islamic charitable trusts. Additionally, Muhammad Izhar Asfi, an RJD legislator from Bihar, has filed his own challenge against the legislation.
The DMK party from Tamil Nadu, represented by its member of parliament A Raja—who served as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee concerning the Waqf Bill—also filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against this legislation. Additionally, the Communist Party of India, led by General Secretary D Raja; the YSR Congress; and TVK President and actor Vijay have contested the Act alongside several other parties.
Supporting the legislation, BJP-run administrations in Rajasthan, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Uttarakhand, and Chhattisgarh appealed to the Supreme Court and submitted intervention petitions.
Apart from state governments, advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh, Aadivasi Seva Mandal, Jay Omkar Bhilala Samajh Sangathan --organisations operating for the protection of rights of Tribals in Madhya Pradesh, Satish Kumar Aggarwal -- a member of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and Vishnu Gupta -- National President of NGO Hindu Sena also filed applications while opposing the petitions challenging Waqf (Amendment) Act .
Two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were also submitted contesting several clauses of the Waqf Act of 1995 and some stipulations within it. Waqf (Amendment) Act In 2025, they alleged discrimination against other communities and demanded equal status along with protections for their assets. (ANI)