The apex court granted the government seven days to file its response, and five days to petitioners.
Published Apr 17, 2025 | 3:43 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 17, 2025 | 3:43 PM
Supreme Court (iStock)
Synopsis: The central government assured the court to put on hold the operation of certain parts of the Act till the next hearing on 5 May.
The Supreme Court on Thursday, 17 April, granted the Union government seven days to file its response to petitions that questioned the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Further time was granted on the Centre’s assurance that it would maintain the status quo in the appointment of members to Waqf administrative bodies.
Accepting the government’s assurance, the court put on hold the operation of certain parts of the Act till the next hearing on 5 May.
The provisions in the Act that have been put on hold included the de-recognition of the Waqf-by-user category of property, and the appointment of non-Muslims to Waqf boards or councils.
The stay came as a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna that comprised of Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan recorded the assurance given by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in this regard.
Only five petitions to be considered
About 100 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court, questioning the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The court said it would consider only five writ petitions, and others would be treated as disposed off.
While accepting the Centre’s assurance that it would maintain a status quo until next hearing, the Supreme Court granted it seven days to respond to challenges to Waqf amendments.
It was granted on the request of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for government, who assured not to make appointments under sections 9 and 14 of the amended law. These sections limited the number of Muslims in the Central Waqf Council to eight and four, out of 22 and 11, respectively.
Referring to these sections, Chief Justice Khanna had on Wednesday, 16 April, asked if the government would allow Muslims in Hindu endowment boards.
The court allowed petitioners five days to respond to the government.
The Waqf-by-user provision provided Waqf boards to claim properties without documentation if used by Muslims for religious or charitable purposes. The apex court had on Wednesday raised concerns over the provision.
While hearing the arguments and counter-arguments on Wednesday, the Supreme Court questioned the justification of granting district collectors the authority to certify Waqf properties.
Initially, Chief Justice Khanna said the bench would focus on two aspects: whether the cases should be transferred to respective high courts or be heard by the Supreme Court itself, and the specific issues the apex court should deliberate upon.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that Article 26 of the Constitution allows religious communities to form institutions and manage their own properties, and that the new law infringes on this right.
He pointed out that the law requires an individual to have followed Islam continuously for five years in order to donate property to the Waqf, and questioned the government’s authority to seek proof of one’s religious adherence.
Sibal also contended that inheritance in Islam is after death and they are intervening before that. When he mentioned that even historical mosques could be affected by the new law, the bench responded that ancient mosques and those protected by the Archaeological Survey of India would not be impacted.
Another major concern raised was the vesting of authority in district collectors to determine whether a property is Waqf.
Sibal argued that since collectors are government appointees, this is akin to a judge deciding a case in which he has personal interest. He further criticised the provision allowing non-Muslims in Waqf Boards and Commissions, calling it unconstitutional.
On the mandatory requirement of property documents under the new law, Sibal argued that it is impractical, especially for properties that were Waqf over 300 years ago.
