Janjivan Bureau / NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court on Thursday deferred passing any interim orders on petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 after the Centre undertook not to make any appointments to waqf councils and waqf boards or de-notify existing waqf properties — including waqf-by-user or waqf-by-deed already declared by notification or gazetted. A three-judge Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna issued notice to the Centre asking it to respond to the petitions challenging the amendment within a week and gave five days to the petitioners to file their rejoinders to the Centre’s reply.
The CJI said if registration of any waqf property had taken place under the erstwhile 1995 Act, then those properties can’t be denotified till the next hearing on May 5. The bench passed the order after Mehta sought a weeks’ time to file a preliminary response to the pleas against the newly-amended waqf law.
“If your lordships will say something about ‘waqf by user’, what will be the fallout?” he asked.
The bench, on the other hand, said it was impossible to deal with a number of pleas on the issue and clarified it would only hear five of them while asking lawyers to decide among themselves who would argue.
The petitioners, the bench said, could file their rejoinders to the Centre’s reply within five days of the service of the government’s response.
While noting that there were certain positive things as well in the amendment, the CJI, however, said the court didn’t want the situation to change on the ground as there were some infirmities as well.
“Let me say, somebody asked for a complete stay, we didn’t say anything. Today, we don’t want the situation to change.. there are provisions such as five years practice of Islam… we are not staying that…There is another thumb rule… Normally, the situation prevailing today should continue to not upset the rights of parties,” CJI Khanna told Mehta.
On behalf of the petitioners against the amendment, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, Rajiv Dhavan wanted the Bench to ensure that waqf under waqf-by-user should also be protected.
Finally, the CJI dictated the order that recorded the Solicitor General’s assurance given to the top court.
“During the course of hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta states that the respondents (Centre and others) would like to file a short reply within seven days and assured that till next date no appointment shall take place to the (waqf) board and (waqf) councils under the 2025 Act. He also assures that waqfs including waqf-by-user already declared by notification or gazetted .. their status shall not be changed. We take the statement on record. Let the reply be filed within seven days. Reply to that be filed within five days of the service,” the Bench ordered.
Noting that it’s impossible to deal with 100 or 120 petitions, the Bench said it will only deal with five petitions and would treat others as “disposed of” or as “applicants”.
The Bench said, “Only five writ petitioners to be in court from next hearing. We only want five here. You select five…others will be treated as either applications or as disposed of. We will not mention names. Now it (the case) will be called: In Re: Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.”
However, it clarified that the writ petitions challenging the 1995 Waqf Act and amendments made in 2013 shall be separately shown from this list. While asking the Centre, states and waqf boards to file their replies within seven days it gave these petitioners five days to file their rejoinders to the replies of the respondents.
Amid violent protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in West Bengal and other states, the Supreme Court had on Wednesday proposed to stay some of its key provisions, including the power to de-notify properties declared as waqf by courts and inclusion of non-Muslims in central Waqf councils and boards.
“Ordinarily, courts do not interfere at the admission stage when a law is passed. But this case may warrant an exception. If a property declared as waqf-by-user is de-notified, it can have grave ramifications,” it had said, deferring the hearing by a day.
“The properties declared as waqfs by the courts should not be de-notified — whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed while the court is hearing the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025,” the Bench had proposed, saying it will “balance the equities”.
It had also proposed that the proviso of the Amendment Act, as per which a Waqf property will not be treated as a Waqf while the Collector is conducting inquiry — where the property is a Government land — will not be given effect to and that all members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.
The Bench had questioned allowing non-Muslims in waqf governance. “Are you suggesting that Muslims could now be part of Hindu endowment boards as well? Please state it openly,” the CJI had told Mehta who clarified that not more than two non-Muslim members, apart from ex officio ones, would be included in the waqf council.
Passed by the Rajya Sabha during the wee hours of April 4 with 128 members voting in favour and 95 opposing it, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 received President Murmu’s assent on April 5.
The Lok Sabha passed the Bill on April 3 with 288 members supporting it and 232 against it. The Centre notified it on April 8. Under the amended law only self-owned resources can be declared as Waqf after ensuring the inheritance rights of women and children and the DC will determine that land being donated by a Muslim is actually in his ownership. It also empowers state governments to nominate members, including representatives from backward classes and both Shia and Sunni communities to Waqf boards.
The petitioners, including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president Arshad Madani, RJD MP Manoj Jha, AAP MLA in Delhi Amanatullah Khan, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, CPI, DMK Tamil actor-turned-politician Vijay and YSRCP, alleged that the amended law imposed “arbitrary restrictions” on Waqf properties and their management, undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community and took away various protections accorded to Waqfs and discriminated against Muslims.
