Waqf Amendment Act Hearing: Supreme Court To Continue Hearing Tomorrow

• The Union Government which was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the court to confine the hearing to three specific issues for the purpose of granting interim relief. The opposition lawyers including senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed this argument demanding a comprehensive review of the matter.

• In response to the petitioner's claims, the Union government assured the court that no appointments would be made to the board until the matter is pending in court. It also provided assurances that those properties declared as waqf by the user would remain so until the next hearing.

• The petitioners have raised concerns over the inclusion of non-muslims in the board which they argue would reduce the religious autonomy of the board. They also raised questions over the power of district collectors over disputed waqf properties.

• Sibal also argued that if the law is not stayed then it can cause 바카라�irreparable damage.바카라� The notion of 바카라�a Muslim has to prove that he is a Muslim to dedicate his property as waqf, and a district collector decides if a property is waqf or government property. The damage would be irreparable,바카라� he said. 

• Sibal compared how other religious endowments like Hindu, Sikh are run by the members of the same faith. The meaning of secularism is to allow religious communities to run their own affairs.

Read Full Story - SC Hearing On Validation Of Waqf Amendment Act 2025 On May 20

The Centre on Tuesday defended the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in the Supreme Court, saying waqf by its very nature is a 바카라�secular concept바카라� and can't be stayed given 바카라�presumption of constitutionality바카라� in its favour.

The Centre, in its written note submitted through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta before a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, addressed the issues the court had previously raised and said the law only sought to regulate secular aspects of waqf administration while safeguarding religious freedoms. He said there was no 바카라�grave national urgency바카라� calling for its stay.

바카라�It is a settled position in law that constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision, either directly or indirectly, and will decide the matter finally. There is a presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws made by Parliament,바카라� the note said.

The law officer would advance submissions on Wednesday.

The Centre said three issues, which were to be dealt by the bench for interim directions, was Section 3(r) which prospectively removes recognition of 바카라�waqf by user바카라� and Section 3C which introduced special provisions excluding government property from being declared as waqf.

It said the third issue was with regard to the composition of the Central Waqf Council and state waqf boards, allowing limited non-Muslim representation.

A Chennai-based lawyer has filed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the ongoing hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

Advocate H Mohamed Ismail, in his intervention plea, supported the contentious law.

The petition underscores the socio-economic and secular significance of waqf properties and urges legal and administrative reforms for their better management.

Ismail said that waqf, as conceptualised in the Holy Quran and Hadith, is inherently secular and not confined to religious purposes.

"For over 1400 years, waqf has served as a public trust for pious and charitable objectives, primarily aimed at the welfare of humanity," the plea said.

Referring to the findings of the Sachar Committee Report tabled in Parliament in 2006, the petition highlights the gross underutilisation of waqf assets.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta commences arguments in the waqf law challenge on behalf of the Union of India. 

Petitions were filed by individuals in public interest and not affected persons, Mr. Mehta notes. 

We were concerned with a legislation which travels back 102 years. We were very careful to represent all stakeholders, he says on behalf of Centre. 

A detailed process was undertaken by the joint parliamentary committe. 25 waqf board were consulted,. he says. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta reportedly stated, "if you have registered as waqf by user, it is safe. Its prospective. With 2 exceptions- 1. property is in dispute [private/gov] kindly appreciate, we are dealing with waqf by user. First category of property is that I dedicated to Allah. Nobody has a right over the gov land, because the entire country would then be the owner of the land and the gov holds the property in trust."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during his argument stated that the current law introduces waqf al-aulad dedicating property in perpetuity to the founder바카라�s family, descendants, including daughters, calling it a 'good thing'.

"Any dispute between private persons and waqf will be adjudicated by the competent court," he added.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated, "Nobody has right over government land. The entire country is the owner of the land. Government holds the land in trust for the beneficiary, the public". 

"Waqf-by-user is property by definition belonged to someone else, but used by you for a long time. Can the government not examine whether a property is public land or not," Mehta asked. 

CJI poses petitioners바카라� argument that the designated officer is a government servant. Alluded to the argument that the DO is an 바카라�agent of the government.바카라�

Mehta refuted and said the submission that there is no access to a judicial forum is misleading.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Centre clarified that the apex court could delete the Section 3c of Waqf Amendment Law As clarifies the court could delete the provision to Section 3C, which deals with the inquiry process. 

Mehta stated, "Inquiry considers revenue, waqf board records. The government is inquiring into title. Government has a duty that public land is not alienated."

He objected to petitioners바카라� argument that Section 3C amounted to 바카라�wholesale takeover바카라� of waqf property. 

"DO inquiry was only regarding updating of revenue record. An aggrieved party can approach the waqf tribunal. The final determination would be made before tribunal or the HC," Mehta added. 

CJI says the picture given by petitioners is inquiry result under Section 3C would be final. Waqf would lose possession of the property. There would be no recourse to judicial fora.

Mehta accuses petitioners of 바카라�selective reading바카라�. 

There will be no eviction from waqf property until entire judicial process of review is completed, Mehta assures. 

- The Hindu

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan counters the status of waqfs is immediately suspended during the inquiry. 

The possession of the property continues as it is, the property functions as a waqf. Only thing they cannot alienate a property during the dispute, Mehta clarified later. 

Solicitor General submits the registration of waqfs puts these properties in the public domain, subject to audits. He said, "It is the duty of waqf to get registered."

Solicitor General Mehta explained the reasons behind having 바카라�five years as practicing Muslim바카라� clause in the act and said that 바카라�This is a menace for several years."

He reportedly said that the conversion to Islam has been misused by many and even the members of the Mohammedan community have expressed concerns over this.

"Only a practicing Muslim comes under Shariah law. We are not concerned if they do namaz five times or don바카라�t consume alcohol here... it is only to check the misuse of law," he added. 

Mehta also said, "2025 amendments resolved problems that the British and successive Indian government could not resolve."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed that "a narrative is being set up across the country that they are asking papers for 100 years of waqf." 

He explained that the Section 3 of 1923 provided for registration- description was important and not deed. 

When CJI asked Mehta if "they claim waqf is of 100 years, it was only necessary to give info of 5 years?"

Mehta responded saying, "If after 1923, waqf is created, you have to go within six months to the court so that contemperaneous record is maintained."

•  The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that nobody can claim right over government land and it is legally empowered to reclaim properties which are declared waqf by using the waqf by user principle.

• Waqf by user refers to a concept where a property is recognised as waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes, even without formal documentation.

• Responding to the submissions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta commenced advancing his arguments on behalf of the Centre before a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.

• 바카라�Nobody has the right over government land,바카라� the top law officer said.

• 바카라�There is a Supreme Court judgment which says the government can save the property if it belongs to the government and has been declared as waqf,바카라� he said.

• At the outset, the law officer said no affected parties have moved the court and 바카라�it is nobody's case that Parliament does not have the competence to pass this legislation.바카라� He referred to the report of the joint parliamentary committee and the fact that many state governments and state waqf boards were consulted before the Act came into being.

• The bench sought response from the Centre on the pleas of the petitioners that an officer above the rank of the district collector can decide the claim over waqf properties on the grounds that they are of government. 바카라�This is not just misleading but a false argument,바카라� the law officer said. The hearing in the case is underway.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the apex court that virtually the country is misled about the takeover of waqfs en masse.

He said, "1923, 1954, 1995 Acts make registration of waqfs mandatory. anybody can register waqfs. not just mutawallis. documents of creation of waqf not necessary, if deed not available only details to identify the waqfs is required."

"The effect of the section saving only registered 바카라�Waqf by user바카라� is interfered with either directly or indirectly by any interim order, it will not only defeat the object and provision itself, it will also result in anomalies," he added. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the apex court, "What will be effect of stay? ... We are not arguing the matter today for final hearing ... It is submitted that if the effect of section saving only registration of waqf by user .. it will defeat object.. it will lead to anomalies ... it would defeat object of Act .. this would give premium to unregistered waqf by user which has been defying the law ... it would be impossible for this Court or any authority to prevent any person fictitiously claiming waqf by user, though it has never been identified by survey, board etc. and which has never been chosen for registration .. It would lead to mischief (noted in a report) that some waqfs are deliberately trying to conceal"

(With inputs from Bar and Bench)

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has clarified that Waqf by user is not a fundamental right.

"Waqf by user was introduced in 1954 Act. It is taken by another legislative policy to prevent mischief, "Mehta said.

He also added, "Legislative policy can be changed by the government taking into consideration the ground situation and domestic concerns."

Quoting Dr. B R Ambedkar from his remarks on uniform civil code, SG Mehta stated, "Waqf is not an essential part of Islam".

"All religion supports charity. Hinduism calls in Daan, Islam calls it waqf. But it is not an essential part, according to Shariah," he argued. 

He also said, 바카라�A Muslim who does not create a Waqf would not be a less Muslim or cease to be a Muslim.바카라�

SG Mehta said, "The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, establishes a structured framework for waqf administration through a three-tier system comprising the Central Waqf Council, State Waqf Boards, and individual waqfs."

The Central Waqf Council, primarily advisory in nature, assists the Central and State Governments and the Boards in the proper administration of auqaf (plural of 바카라�waqf바카라�) without intervening in the religious functions of individual waqfs.

The State Waqf Boards, functioning at the second level, focus on the secular administration of waqf properties, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements related to management, accounting, and transparency.

The final layer consists of individual waqfs, which operate independently concerning religious functions while adhering to administrative regulations as set by the Boards.

- The Hindu

Waqf Amendment Act SC Hearing LIVE: Centre Calls Inclusion Of Non-Muslims Is 'Microscopic', Says 'It Is Not Encroachment'

According to reports, SG Mehta called the inclusion of two non-Muslim members in Waqf board as 'mcroscopic' and stated that it is not 'not a breach' or encroachment.

The act says two non-Muslims to be added in 11 waf boards and four out of 22 in the Central Council. 

Mehta then stated, "There is, therefore, no interference in waqf or its activities by the Central Council. The directives to the Waqf Board also are only restricted to the secular aspects."

SG Mehta noted that waqf can be a mosque or a dargah - but it can also be a school, orphanage etc. There are several secular charitable institutions that could constitute a waqf, he submits.

Law can therefore allow for participation of a minority of non-Muslims also since waqf property could be for non-Muslims also, he added.

- Bar and Bench

According to the reports, SG Mehta argues that challenge to Section 3E (land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes cannot be declared waqf property) is an academic challenge.

Mehta says, "There cannot be a constitutional challenge which is academic in nature. Schedule 5 and 6 are separate provisions for the tribal areas.

-Bar and Bench

Tushar Mehta asked for more time for arguments tomorrow. CJI said the respondents will be given half an hour.

The Apex Court will continue the Waqf Amendment hearing tomorrow.