Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court today recorded significant assurances from the Union Government while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing petitions filed against the latest Waqf amendments when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, assured the Court that the Centre would file its preliminary response within 7 days.

Court directed that no changes shall be made to the status of waqf properties or appointments to waqf bodies until further orders and scheduled the next hearing for May 5 at 2 PM. 

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the Union Government would file its preliminary response within 7 days. He further assured the Bench that no appointments would be made to the Central Waqf Council or the State Waqf Boards, including for the National Capital Territory of Delhi, under Sections 9 and 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by the 2025 Act.

SG Mehta added that if any State not before the Court proceeds with such appointments, the same may be declared void. He also stated that no waqf, whether declared by notification or registration, including waqf by user, shall be de-notified or have its character or status altered until the next date of hearing. The Court formally recorded these statements.

In terms of case management, the Court identified five writ petitions as lead matters, which will now be titled:-

1. W.P.(C) No. 276/2025 – Arshad Madani v. Union of India; In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (1)

2. W.P.(C) No. 314/2025 – Muhammad Jameel Merchant v. Union of India; In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (2)

3. W.P.(C) No. 284/2025 – Mohammed Fazlurrahim & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.; In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (3)

4. W.P.(C) No. 331/2025 – Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. The Union of India & Ors.; In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (4)

5. W.P.(C) No. 269/2025 – Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India; In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (5)

"The other writ petitions/matters will be treated as intervention/impleadment applications filed in the aforesaid writ petitions," the bench ordered. 

The Court further directed that petitions challenging the original 1995 Waqf Act and the 2013 Amendments, such as W.P.(C) No. 353/2025 (Hari Shankar Jain & Anr. v. Union of India) and Diary No. 19103/2025 (Parul Khera v. Union of India), shall be listed separately in the cause list.

"The writ petitions challenging the 1995 Waqf Act and the amendments made therein in 2013 including W.P.(C) No. 353/2025 “Hari Shankar Jain and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.” and W.P.(C) Diary No. 19103/2025 titled “Parul Khera v. Union of India and Ors.”, shall be separately shown in the cause list," the Court ordered. 

Additionally, it directed, "As a special case, liberty is granted to the petitioners, who have filed writ petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, to file their response to the said writ petitions."

The Court also directed the appointment of nodal counsels for both sides to facilitate coordination:

1. Advocate Ejaz Maqbool [Petitioners]

2. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain [Applicants]

3. Advocates Kanu Agarwal [Respondents]

The bench clarified that the May 5, 2025, hearing will be a preliminary one, during which the Court may pass further interim orders, if necessary. "We clarify that the hearing fixed on the next date will be a preliminary hearing, and, if required, interim orders will be passed," it said. 

While hearing, CJI Khanna observed, “We are not staying anything right now. But we also do not want the situation to change,” noting that while the petitions raise serious issues, the Court is also conscious of maintaining the balance.

The Solicitor General urged the Court not to stay statutory provisions on a prima facie basis, stressing that the legislation is “well-considered” and has been introduced after factoring in historical complexities. “Entire villages have been declared waqf in the past. These are not matters for interim relief based on a first-glance reading,” Mehta submitted.

SG Mehta submitted, "If Your Lordships make any observation regarding waqf created by user declarations, it could have serious consequences."

The Chief Justice, while clarifying that no blanket stay was being granted, emphasized that the status quo must be maintained to protect the rights of all parties. He added that provisions like the five-year practice requirement for establishing waqf were not under suspension, and the broader challenge will be heard separately.

The matter will next be heard on May 5, 2025, at 2 PM. 

Last Hearing

Yesterday, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners challenging the Waqf Amendment Act had argued that the law empowers the State to assess one’s religious identity and interferes in matters of inheritance and religious autonomy. “Who is the State to judge whether I am a Muslim?” Sibal had argued, taking exception to the five-year practicing Muslim condition for setting up a waqf.

The Court had questioned the government’s rationale for allowing a majority of non-Muslims in the Waqf advisory bodies while denying the same logic to Hindu endowment boards. “Mr. Mehta, are you saying that from now on, you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly,” CJI Khanna had asked pointedly, after it was revealed that, apart from two ex-officio members, only eight out of twenty-two members of the Waqf Council would be Muslims.

Near the close of proceedings, CJI Khanna acknowledged the petitions pending before high courts and expressed the court’s inclination to transfer them to itself for a consolidated hearing. The bench had noted that around 140 petitions are pending and agreed to continue hearing the matter tomorrow at 2 PM. However, no interim relief was granted. 

Moreover, before rising, the CJI had remarked on the “disturbing” violence erupting across parts of the country over the issue, assuring that the matter is now before the court and will be decided judicially.

Petitions Before the Court 

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA and Chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board Amanatullah Khan on Saturday, 5 April, moved the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Khan moved the Apex Court through Advocate Adeel Ahmed. The petition seeks directions to declare the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 300-A of the Indian Constitution.

Contending that the bill curtails the autonomy of Muslims, the petition states, "The bill curtails the religious and cultural autonomy of Muslims, enables arbitrary executive interference, and undermines minority rights to manage their religious and charitable institutions. The Petitioner, an elected representative and concerned citizen, seeks urgent intervention of this Hon'ble Court to safeguard the secular and constitutional fabric of the country."

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi also approached the Supreme Court challenging the bill. In his petition, Owaisi termed the Bill 'unconstitutional.' He argued that the bill brazenly violates the fundamental rights of Muslims and the Muslim community.

In a related development, Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that reviewed the bill, also moved the Supreme Court challenging it. He contended that the bill violates Articles 14, 25, 26, 29, and 300A of the Constitution. He also raised concerns regarding the proposed inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and the Waqf Council.

About the Bill 

Notably, the bill, introduced by Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju on August 28, 2024, in the Lok Sabha, aimed to amend the Waqf Act, 1995, to address management issues surrounding waqf properties.

The amended Act provides that a waqf can be created by individuals practicing Islam for at least five years, replacing earlier provisions that included non-Muslims. In the Waqf laws of 1913, 1923, 1954, and 1995, waqf was exclusively defined as a permanent dedication of property by individuals professing Islam. However, a 2013 amendment to the 1995 Act broadened the definition, allowing property to be dedicated as waqf by persons of any faith, including non-Muslims.

The Act also replaces the survey commissioner with the District Collector, who will oversee waqf property surveys and resolve disputes over ownership. Additionally, the Act introduces mandatory non-Muslim members in both the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, breaking from the tradition of exclusively Muslim representation. It grants state governments the authority to nominate all board members, including two non-Muslims and members from Backward Classes of Muslims, Shias, and Sunnis.

Cause Title: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India & Batch of petitions [W.P.(C) No. 269/2025]

Download and Read the Order here