Supreme Court Reserves Order On Interim Relief In Challenge To Waqf Amendment Act, 2025
The Supreme Court on Thursday 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.
The Bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard arguments from Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the petitioners. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India.
“Law Cannot Behave Like a Feudal Lord”
Opposing the amendment, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi criticized the legislative move as a conceptual misstep. “Time and again, the law has granted recognition to waqf by user. Now it seeks to extinguish it. Laws cannot behave like feudal lords,” he remarked.
Singhvi argued that waqf by user is a religious and doctrinal practice acknowledged in Islamic law, and not a creation of statute. “Recognition does not amount to creation,” he stressed, adding that the amendment creates a legal paradox by mandating registration of waqfs while simultaneously abolishing waqf by user, making such registration impossible.
“Legislative Fiat Cannot Justify State Inaction”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal opened the post-lunch rebuttal by questioning the constitutionality of Section 3C, arguing that it alters revenue records without a defined procedure and violates principles of due process. “There is no procedure established by law for how this determination [of government property] is to take place. It is ex facie arbitrary,” he submitted.
Sibal noted that surveys mandated under the 1995 Waqf Act were never completed by many states. “Only two waqfs have been registered in Delhi and none in Jammu & Kashmir. Whose fault is that? Certainly not the community’s,” he said.
Referring to the WAMSI (Waqf Assets Management System of India) portal, Sibal argued that the failure of the State to conduct waqf surveys cannot be used to penalise the community now.
“The Union says properties were never waqf to begin with, and that the community is asserting false claims. But their entire argument is based on a misunderstanding of waqf by user,” he asserted.
“Waqf is Irrevocable, Rooted in Faith”
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan defended waqf as an essential part of Islamic faith. “Charity is one of the five pillars of Islam. Once a waqf is created, it becomes irrevocable,” he said, citing the Ratilal judgment to argue that even charity commissioners cannot interfere with religious endowments.
He warned that the amendment, by excluding categories such as evacuee properties and scheduled areas, strikes at the heart of the waqf doctrine and could also undermine protections under the Places of Worship Act.
“Waqf is intricately woven into the social and economic life of a Muslim,” he said, emphasizing that no external authority has the right to decide what constitutes an essential religious practice.
“Pre-Digitalisation is Work in Progress”
Sibal further argued that the non-registration of waqfs before the digitalisation era cannot be used to deny their religious character. “The statutory consequence of non-registration was never to extinguish title. That is being attempted now, through a legislative shortcut,” he contended.
He also rebutted the Union's claim that waqf by user was being misused to claim non-waqf properties, calling it a "gross misconception." He reminded the Bench that even the Babri Masjid judgment had acknowledged the concept of waqf by user.
The Bench Reserves Order
Following extensive arguments, the Bench reserved its order on interim relief.The final adjudication on the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, will take place after further hearings.
The Court’s order on interim relief is now awaited.
Previously before Court
Earlier, today, Mehta opened by stating that three days of hearings had revealed no ex-facie evidence of unconstitutionality. He cautioned that mere legal propositions or hypothetical arguments do not justify halting the operation of a law duly enacted by Parliament. With this, the Centre concluded its submissions before the Court.
It is to be noted that on May 21, in the morning session, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta launching a strong defence of the legislation, terming the allegations of a “wholesale capture” of waqf properties as “misleading and false.” In the post-lunch session, the SG had addressed concerns raised about the treatment of government property allegedly declared as waqf by user. Emphasising the need to protect public assets, he had stated, “The government is the custodian of public land held in trust for crores of citizens. There is a false narrative being propagated that waqf properties are being arbitrarily taken away. The country is being misled.”
On May 20, the Supreme Court had addressed submissions from Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi and others representing the petitioners. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Court to confine arguments to three specifically identified issues, as his affidavit responded solely to those points. He sought to restrict the proceedings accordingly.
The petitioners’ counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, opposed any such limitation, contending that the matter cannot be dissected into isolated issues. Sibal emphasized the broader concern of alleged executive “capture” and takeover of Waqf properties under the Amendment Act. Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi echoed the sentiment, underscoring that the case should not be heard piecemeal.
It is to be noted, that on May 5, the Supreme Court Bench led by then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had observed that the matter will be heard by a different bench as he was demitting office on May 13.
During the brief proceedings, then CJI Khanna had remarked that the Bench had not delved into the counter affidavit in depth. He had noted that while certain issues around registration and statistics had been raised, “those will require closer scrutiny.” He clarified that he did not intend to pass any interim order or reserve judgment at this stage. “If all parties agree, we can list the matter before a bench led by Justice Gavai on Wednesday,” the CJI had suggested.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, in a rejoinder to the preliminary affidavit filed by the Centre, last month have asserted that the recent legislative changes in the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, infringe upon fundamental rights and were passed through a flawed parliamentary process. The Board argued that the Respondents’ defense, that the amendments do not affect essential religious practices, is legally untenable. It stated that compelling the Petitioners to undergo the “Essential Religious Practices” (ERP) test is not only constitutionally misplaced but also ignores the evolution of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Last month, the Central Government has submitted a detailed preliminary affidavit before the Supreme Court, defending the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and opposing interim reliefs sought by petitioners challenging the law.
Case Title: In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025