The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to stay the operation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act and sought Centre's response to over 100 petitions which challenge the constitutional validity of law, which seeks authentication of Waqf property and provides for appointment of non-Muslims to the Waqf Council and the Aukaf Board.
The court said several provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act are salutary but few, including the expanse and ambit of 'waqf by user' and the non-Muslim members' strength in Waqf Council, need clarification.
"Waqf by user" refers to a practice where a property is recognised as a religious or charitable endowment (waqf) based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there isn't a formal, written declaration of waqf by the owner.
"How will you register such waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment, order or decree as void. You can only take the basis," the bench said.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan questioned the Centre if it would include Muslims to be a part of Hindu religious trusts.
The bench expressed concern over violence taking place over the Waqf (Amendment) Act and posted the matter for tomorrow.
The court proposed to pass order that properties declared as waqf including 'waqf by user' will not de-notified, to which the Centre opposed and requested for a hearing.
The court further noted that ex-officio members can be appointed regardless of faith but others have to be Muslims.
Several petitioners—ranging from political leaders to religious organisations—had submitted pleas raising serious concerns about the legislation’s impact on property rights and religious freedoms.
The pleas further challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Calls for scrapping key provisions
One of the prominent petitions came from advocate Hari Shankar Jain, known for his involvement in the Gyanvapi mosque and Mathura Idgah cases.
Jain sought the complete scrapping of multiple provisions from the Waqf Act, 1995, as well as the recent amendments. In his petition, he alleged that these sections were being used as tools by Waqf Boards to "illegally amass immovable properties" across India.
Jain specifically challenged six sections of the Act, arguing that they enabled Muslim entities to unlawfully claim lands belonging to public utilities, government agencies, gram samajs, and Hindu temples.
Plea for clubbing petitions
Representing Jain, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain had earlier urged the bench—comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar—to hear the petition alongside others that challenged the amendments.
These included petitions from AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi, AAP leader Amanatullah Khan, the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), Darul Uloom principal Arshad Madani, Islamic organisation Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, advocate Taiyyab Khan Salmani, SDPI's Mohd Shafi, and All India Muslim Personal Law Board general secretary Mohd Fazlurrahim.
RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha had also filed a petition, joining the chorus of voices challenging the constitutional foundation of the law.
The court said several provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act are salutary but few, including the expanse and ambit of 'waqf by user' and the non-Muslim members' strength in Waqf Council, need clarification.
"Waqf by user" refers to a practice where a property is recognised as a religious or charitable endowment (waqf) based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there isn't a formal, written declaration of waqf by the owner.
"How will you register such waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment, order or decree as void. You can only take the basis," the bench said.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan questioned the Centre if it would include Muslims to be a part of Hindu religious trusts.
The bench expressed concern over violence taking place over the Waqf (Amendment) Act and posted the matter for tomorrow.
The court proposed to pass order that properties declared as waqf including 'waqf by user' will not de-notified, to which the Centre opposed and requested for a hearing.
The court further noted that ex-officio members can be appointed regardless of faith but others have to be Muslims.
Several petitioners—ranging from political leaders to religious organisations—had submitted pleas raising serious concerns about the legislation’s impact on property rights and religious freedoms.
The pleas further challenged the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Calls for scrapping key provisions
One of the prominent petitions came from advocate Hari Shankar Jain, known for his involvement in the Gyanvapi mosque and Mathura Idgah cases.
Jain sought the complete scrapping of multiple provisions from the Waqf Act, 1995, as well as the recent amendments. In his petition, he alleged that these sections were being used as tools by Waqf Boards to "illegally amass immovable properties" across India.
Jain specifically challenged six sections of the Act, arguing that they enabled Muslim entities to unlawfully claim lands belonging to public utilities, government agencies, gram samajs, and Hindu temples.
Plea for clubbing petitions
Representing Jain, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain had earlier urged the bench—comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar—to hear the petition alongside others that challenged the amendments.
These included petitions from AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi, AAP leader Amanatullah Khan, the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), Darul Uloom principal Arshad Madani, Islamic organisation Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, advocate Taiyyab Khan Salmani, SDPI's Mohd Shafi, and All India Muslim Personal Law Board general secretary Mohd Fazlurrahim.
RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha had also filed a petition, joining the chorus of voices challenging the constitutional foundation of the law.
You may also like
Isuzu Motors India's CV export grows 24 pc to 20,312 units in FY25
"Tamil Nadu is always out of control of Delhi": Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin
Fortnite early patch notes for update 34.40 – new weapons, TMNT crossovers, Star Wars hints and more
Anupam Kher gets emotional as he wears the director's t-shirt again after 23 years
Mrs Hinch rushes baby son Vinnie to hospital as he's diagnosed with condition
