“Petitions Misleading, No Wholesale Takeover Of Waqf Properties”: Centre Defends Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 Before Supreme Court

The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih is hearing the matter.

At the outset, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for some of the petitioners, sought permission to make submissions, but the CJI declined, remarking, “No, no. Sorry.” When Wilson persisted, the CJI expressed displeasure, stating, “This Court has become very difficult. No respect at all.”

Thereafter, SG Mehta began by asserting that none of the petitioners were directly affected and there was no challenge to Parliament's legislative competence. He submitted that the Amendment was the result of a robust consultative process led by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which held 96 sittings and received over 97 lakh representations.

Referring to the JPC’s report, SG Mehta pointed out that 25 State Waqf Boards were consulted, and each clause of the Bill was discussed and reviewed in detail. “The Bill was passed with an unprecedented majority,” he said.

Mehta highlighted one significant and unchallenged reform in the 2025 Amendment, introducing gender-inclusive benefits under waqf-alal-aulad, for the first time extending benefits to daughters and widows.

Addressing the core contention surrounding Section 3(C)—which permits updating of revenue records, Mehta clarified that the provision does not enable the government to unilaterally take possession of waqf property. “There is no finality. The Designated Officer does not determine title. Only revenue records are corrected,” he emphasized. “Possession can be taken only after judicial adjudication," he argued.

Responding to the Bench’s concerns about potential misuse, Mehta submitted, “The officer empowered is above the rank of Collector—precisely to avoid allegations of bias. If the Court believes the proviso is problematic, delete it. But the rest of Section 3(C) must stand.”

CJI Gavai questioned whether the Act effectively ends the waqf character of a property.

Justice Masih asked if possession remained undisturbed pending adjudication. Mehta confirmed, “Yes, status quo must be maintained unless proper legal recourse is taken.” He strongly refuted the narrative that the Amendment allows mass usurpation of Waqf lands, calling it a “deliberate misreading” of the law.

Turning to the history of waqf registration laws, Mehta traced the evolution from the 1923 legislation which first mandated registration. Citing Section 3 of the 1923 Act, he pointed out that even then, basic information about the waqf was required, adding that the deed itself was not necessary.

In response to arguments that the Amendment disenfranchises waqfs for non-registration, Mehta relied on the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, which bars suits for unregistered trusts. “A similar provision was introduced in 1984 under Section 55(A), but it was never notified due to strong opposition,” he submitted.

Mehta further informed the Court that even though Section 87 of the 1995 Act carried forward this mandate, it too was repealed in November 2013.

Refuting claims of historical oppression, Mehta said: “Both the British and Indian governments have tried for over 100 years to streamline waqf governance. The Amendment merely seeks to bring order where there has been concealment and manipulation.”

CJI Gavai reminded the SG not to rely on arguments related to religious community sentiments: “We will decide on the law, not community support or opposition.”

The matter will resume post-lunch, with SG Mehta expected to continue his submissions.