The Supreme Court began hearings on pleas challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on Wednesday, April 16. The Court, during the hearing, rasied concerns over the composition of the Waqf board as per the amended law.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan is hearing the matters. The court did not pass any interim order on Wednesday and will resume hearing on Thursday, April 17.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, came into force. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha passed the bill during the recently concluded Budget Session of Parliament. President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the proposed law on April 5.
Although ten petitions were initially listed before a bench on Wednesday, more than 15 petitions have been filed by religious institutions, members of Parliament, political parties, states etc, challenging the 2025 Act.
Overall, more than 70 petitions have been filed challenging the 2025 Act, and one petition has been filed challenging the Parent Act, the Waqf Act, 1995. Five BJP-led States, Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Maharashtra, have filed intervention applications supporting the legislation.
The Centre filed a caveat in the Supreme Court on April 8, requesting that no orders be passed without hearing its side.
Here are 10 big observations by the Supreme Court of India during the argument on Wednesday:
1- During Wednesday’s arguments, CJI Khanna raised concerns over how some properties have been classified as Waqf.
“We have been told the Delhi High Court building is on Waqf land, Oberoi Hotel is on Waqf land… We are not saying all Waqf-by-user properties are wrongly registered, but there are some genuine areas of concern, too,” Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed.
“Waqf by user” refers to a practice where a property is recognised as a religious or charitable endowment (waqf) based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there isn’t a formal, written declaration of waqf by the owner.
2- Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, began reading out the sections of the new law under challenge and said, “Who is the State to tell us how inheritance will happen in my religion?” He argued that under Islamic law, inheritance happens only after death, and the government was now attempting to interfere before that.
‘Inheritance in Islam is after death’
CJI Khanna responded to Sibal’s remarks, saying, “But in Hindus it does happen… so Parliament has enacted a law for Muslims. Maybe it’s not like the law for Hindus. Article 26 will not bar the enactment of the law in this case. Article 26 is universal — and it is secular in the fashion that it applies to all,” according to legal news website, LiveLaw.
Sibal, however, countered, saying, “Inheritance in Islam is after death. They are intervening before that.”
3- During his arguments, Sibal referred to the provision (Section 3C) that a property identified as a government property would not be a Waqf property and that the government’s authority would decide the dispute.
Sibal then moved on to Section 3D which invalidates the creation of Waqf over ASI-protected monuments. The CJI pointed out that as per the provision, if the property was a protected monument at the time of the creation of a Waqf, then such Waqf would be invalid.
“How many of such cases will be there?,”CJI Khanna asked. “Jama Masjid,” Sibal replied. However, CJI said that the Jama Masjid was notified as a protected monument later.
“On my reading, the interpretation is in your favour. If it’s declared as a waqf, before it was declared as an ancient monument, it would not make any difference. It will remain waqf, you should not be objecting unless after it’s declared as protected, it cannot be declared as waqf. Most of the monuments, the ancient mosques, they will not be hit by this clause,” the CJI said, as per LiveLaw.
Non-Muslims in Waqf Boards
4- Sibal also spoke about Sections 9, 14 regarding the nomination of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards. This, Sibal said, was a direct violation of Article 26.
Sibal argued that the central law regarding Sikh Gurudwaras and many State laws on Hindu Religious Endowments do not permit the inclusion of persons of other faiths in the respective Boards. He said such provisions allow a “complete takeover of the Boards through nomination.”
Sibal also raised objections to the provisions mandating registration. “What is wrong with it?,” CJI asked. Sibal said that presently, waqf-by-user can be created without registration.
“You can register a waqf which will also help you to maintain a register,” CJI said. Justice Viswanathan also said, “if you have a deed, there won’t be any bogus or false claims.”
“They will ask us if there was a Waqf created 300 years ago, and to produce the deed. Many of these properties were created hundreds of years ago, and there won’t be any documents,” Sibal said.
Sibal added that when the British came, many Waqf properties were entered in the register as belonging to the Governor General, and after independence, the Government staked a claim over such properties.
Concerns over Waqf-by-user,
5- Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Union, highlighted that the law was enacted after an elaborate exercise by the Joint Parliamentary Committee. He emphasised that both houses of the Parliament passed the bill after a long debate.
As the arguments continued, CJI pointed out the provision regarding disputes with government and asked why the property should not be deemed as a waqf till the dispute is decided. “Why will it not remain a waqf property? Let the civil court decide that,” CJI said.
“Mr Tushar Mehta, tell us. Waqf-by-user, if accepted prior to 2025 Act, is it now declared to be void or non-existent?” CJI asked.
Many Masjids built 14th or 15th centuries ago
6 -The CJI also sought clarity about the conditions – that the property must not be in “dispute”. “Before the Britishers came, we did not have any registration. Many of the masjids are created in 14th or 15th centuries. To require them to produce a registered deed is impossible. Most of the cases, say Jama Masjid Delhi, the waqf will be waqf-by-user,” CJI said.
“What prevented them from registering?” SG asked.
7- The CJI also questioned the the SG about the provision inserted to Section 2A, which says that a trust property won’t be covered by the Waqf Act, notwithstanding any judgment of the Court.
“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 or declare as not binding,” CJI said.
8- CJI Khanna also asked about the provisions allowing the nomination of non-Muslim members to Waqf Boards.
“When we are sitting here to adjudicate, we lose our religion. We are talking about a Board which is managing religious affairs. Let’s say in Hindu temple, all are Hindu in the Governor Council. How are you comparing with judges?” CJI asked.
You cannot rewrite the past
9- The CJI also raised concerns about the provision to Section 2A.
You cannot rewrite the past of 100 years back! – CJI Khanna
“Where public trust has been declared as waqf, say 100 or 200 years back, you turn about and say it is not waqf…You cannot rewrite the past of 100 years back!,” CJI Khanna said.
10- Mehta said there is usurpation by the Union government. “This was so in 1995 and even in 2013 the central waqf council was established.. this is only consultative advisory body. This is only about how boards have to perform etc,” he said.
Will you allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu boards
CJI responded, “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 Khanna condemned the violence after the Bill’s passing, saying it’s very disturbing.
The Court will hear the parties on Thursday at 2 PM. Although CJI Khanna was about to dictate the order, but after the fervent requests by the Solicitor General of India and counsel for other respondents for a hearing before the interim order, the Court posted the matter for April 17.
(With inputs from LiveLaw)
About The Author
