THE SUPREME COURT WILL DELIVER on Monday, September 15, its interim order on a batch of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on the ground that the law singles out the Muslim community, imposes discriminatory burdens on Islamic endowments, and undermines the secular fabric of the Constitution.
A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih had reserved the order on May 22 after marathon arguments over three days beginning May 20.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Huzefa Ahmadi, Chander Uday Singh and others had appeared for the petitioners, contending that the law discriminates against Muslims, targets essential religious practices, and permits arbitrary deprivation of waqf properties.
Petitioners warned that the abolition of waqf by user would wipe out centuries-old mosques, graveyards and religious sites without deeds but of deep religious significance. They also opposed the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Councils, saying it intrudes into Muslim religious affairs and violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution which guarantee autonomy in managing religious institutions.
A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih had reserved the order on May 22.
Defending the amendments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta , representing the central government, had argued that while waqf has Islamic origins, it is not an essential religious practice. He said Waqf Boards perform secular functions—managing properties, keeping accounts and conducting audits.
Drawing a distinction with Hindu endowments, Mehta had told the Court: “Hindu endowments deal with religious activities, including appointing pujaris. Waqf Boards do not touch upon any religious activity.” He stressed that allowing at most two non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards would not alter their character, since their role is administrative and not theological.
On the abolition of waqf by user, Mehta maintained it was a statutory creation of 2013 and not a fundamental right, and Parliament was competent to repeal it through the 2025 amendment.
Countering the Centre’s stand, Singhvi remarked: “The logic that ‘law gave and law took away’ sounds biblical — that the Lord gave and the Lord took away. Law is not the Lord. You cannot take away what you never gave.”
Sibal criticised the 2025 law’s mandate for registration of waqf properties by November 2025, cautioning that unregistered waqfs would be lost forever. “The State did not conduct waqf surveys for nearly a century. Now it seeks to punish the Muslim community for that failure by putting the onus on them,” he had argued.
The petitioners contended that retrospective documentation requirements unfairly burden a community that has historically preserved its religious properties through usage and tradition.
The batch of petitions includes those filed by Mohammad Jawed (Congress MP), Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM MP), Maulana Arshad Madani (Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind), All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulama, Social Democratic Party of India and Association for Protection of Civil Rights.
On the other side, BJP-ruled States—Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam—have supported the amendments, citing instances of alleged misuse of waqf claims over public and private lands.