Umeed Portal Sparks Fresh Row: AIMPLB Petitions Supreme Court, Seeks Suspension Until Waqf Act Verdict

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has approached the Supreme Court seeking suspension of the government’s newly launched ‘Umeed Portal’, arguing that it directly undermines ongoing challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. In its writ petition, the Board urged the court to either ban the portal or direct the Union government to withdraw the notification mandating its use until the Supreme Court rules on the Act’s constitutional validity.

AIMPLB national spokesperson Dr. S.Q.R. Ilyas stated that despite repeated appeals, the government launched the portal on June 6, making online registration of Waqf properties compulsory. The petition contends that the portal exerts “illegal pressure” on mutawallis (Waqf property managers) and could prejudice the reliefs being sought in the pending cases before the apex court. “The Act itself is under review by the Supreme Court. Launching the portal at this stage is both illegal and an act of contempt,” Dr. Ilyas said.

The Board further highlighted that several communities, including Muslims, political parties, human rights groups, and even Sikh and Christian organisations, have opposed the 2025 law. AIMPLB argues that until judicial scrutiny concludes, operationalising the portal is unconstitutional and premature.

Alongside the legal action, the AIMPLB has also called for a symbolic protest against the amendments. It urged citizens to switch off lights in their homes, offices, and commercial establishments for 15 minutes at 9 PM on Wednesday. According to Dr. Ilyas, the protest is intended to “strengthen the campaign” against the Waqf reforms, which many view as an attempt to dilute minority control over religious endowments.

Background

After receiving presidential assent, the 2025 Waqf Amendment Act  came under unprecedented legal challenge, with over 65 petitions filed before the Supreme Court. The petitioners included political leaders, civil society groups, and clerics. Among them were AIMIM chief and Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi, AAP legislator Amanatullah Khan, Arshad Madani of the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, Congress leaders Imran Masood and Udit Raj, RJD’s Manoj Kumar Jha, TMC’s Mahua Moitra, CPI(M) leader Mohammad Salim, the Indian Union Muslim League, the Communist Party of India, Shia cleric Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi, and Anjuman-E-Islam, besides rights organisations like the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights.

In contrast, six states, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam, moved the court in support of the law, vouching for its constitutionality.

The first hearing took place on April 16, 2025, before a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan. Ten petitions were heard, focusing on challenges to the Act’s constitutional validity. A day later, on April 17, the bench granted the Union one week to respond, while recording two assurances from the government: that no waqfs, including those created by user, would be denotified, and that no fresh appointments would be made to the Waqf Council or Waqf Boards until the next hearing. The bench further restricted arguments to five petitioners’ counsel and clarified that no additional writ petitions would be entertained.

On April 29, this position was reiterated, with the court dismissing as withdrawn 25 fresh petitions, including one by TMC leader Derek O’Brien.

When the matter was listed on May 5, Chief Justice Khanna recused the bench from proceeding further, observing that with his imminent retirement, it would not be feasible to conclude the case. The hearing was consequently deferred to a new bench under Chief Justice-designate B.R. Gavai.

The reconstituted bench, comprising CJI Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, heard the matter for the first time on May 15. The judges clarified that, at this stage, they would only hear submissions on interim relief and posted the case for further hearing on May 20.

Arguments Till Now:

On May 20, 2025, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued against implementing Waqf Provisions, before a Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, focusing on whether interim relief should be granted. Sibal, opening the arguments for the petitioners, said the law “seeks to capture the waqf through an act that is not judicial” and warned of irreparable injury if its provisions came into force. He argued that the amendment abolishes the concept of waqf by user, retrospectively removes waqf status from properties declared as ancient monuments, and imposes arbitrary conditions such as proving five years of Islamic practice before creating a waqf.

Sibal further contended that the law disproportionately impacts Muslims from Scheduled Tribe communities by barring their land from being declared waqf property, and that Sections 3D and 3E were added at the last minute in Parliament without deliberation. Senior Advocates Rajeev Dhavan, A.M. Singhvi, C.U. Singh, and Huzefa Ahmadi supported his arguments, pointing out that more than half of waqf properties in the country are waqfs by user and risk invalidation under the amendment. They also objected to the dilution of Muslim representation in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, where appointments can now be made by governments, including non-Muslims.

The petitioners submitted that the law deprives waqifs of remedies, as disputes raised by any person can stall registration and lead to denotification of properties without the right to appeal. They warned that the retrospective provisions could “obliterate” mosques and other places of worship historically recognised as waqf. The Bench, however, noted that the constitutionality of a statute is presumed unless proven otherwise and adjourned the matter for further hearing on interim relief.

On May 21, the Union was led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defending the legislation on behalf of the Union government. Countering petitioners’ claims that the law enables a “wholesale takeover” of waqf properties, Mehta said the amendment was introduced after the Joint Parliamentary Committee received 97 lakh representations and consulted 25 Waqf Boards. He stressed that none of the petitions were filed by “affected individuals” and argued that the law targets a “menace” dating back to 1923.

On the petitioners’ contention that the Act abolishes ‘waqf by user’, properties deemed waqf through long usage, Mehta said such recognition was never a fundamental right but a statutory concession, subject to change. He pointed to opportunities under the 1923, 1954 and 1995 Acts for registration and cited reports describing widespread evasion in registering waqfs. “Any unregistered claim today is fictitious,” he said, adding that creating a waqf is not an essential religious practice.

Addressing objections to government officers deciding disputes, Mehta maintained that remedial avenues remain open through Waqf Tribunals and appellate courts. He further argued that Waqf Boards perform only “secular functions” like audits and litigation, justifying the inclusion of non-Muslim members. Conservation of monuments, protection of tribal land, and preventing unilateral claims by waqf boards, he added, were key objectives of the amendment.

On May 22, top Court reserved its order on interim relief in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which, among other provisions, abolishes the concept of "waqf by user" and introduces sweeping changes to the registration and classification of waqf properties across India.

Case Title: In re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025