NEW DELHI: A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court has given an indication it is considering staying the operation of certain parts of the contentious Waqf Act, 2025 which include the concept of ‘waqf-by-user’, representation of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards, and the powers of the Collector to change the status of disputed Waqf land.
“We do not stay a legislation normally at this stage of the challenge unless in exceptional circumstances. This appears to be an exception. Our concern is that if waqf-by-user is de-notified, there could be huge consequences,” Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna said in an oral observation. The bench also included Justices P V Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan.
The 2025 Waqf law does away with the concept of waqf-by-user. Waqf-by-user is land used for Muslim religious or charitable purpose for a long period of time – it is deemed to be a Waqf even if it was not registered as such. This could potentially raise questions on the status of several such Waqf properties.
“As far as waqf-by-user is concerned, it will be very difficult to register. So, there is ambiguity there. You may argue that waqf-by-user is also being misused. You have a point there… You may have a point that’s being misused also, but at the same time, there is genuine waqf-by-user also. You can’t say that there is no genuine waqf-by-user either,” Chief Justice Khanna said.
Registration of Waqf properties
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that he will be able to justify the government’s stand that if a waqf-by-user is registered, it will continue to remain so. He said he was saying so because registration of Waqf properties has been mandatory since the first Waqf Act in 1923.
“From 1923 when the first Waqf Act came into force, registration of Waqf is mandatory, statutorily, mandatorily required. You cannot have an unregistered Waqf. Even waqf-by-user cannot be unregistered, which was followed by the Waqf Act of 1954. Under 1954 Act also, it is mandatory to have your waqf-by-user or any other waqf registered. That was followed by the Waqf Act of 1995. The present Act, where also the registration of Waqf is… only compulsory.…,” Mehta said.
The 2025 law states that if the district collector identifies any property as government land, it would cease to be Waqf property till a court determines its status. The Supreme Court indicated that while the Collector can make his inquiry, the effect of his determination could be kept in abeyance.
The three-judge bench was about to dictate the interim order when Solicitor General Mehta sought to be heard for some more time. The Court then said that it would hear the case again on April 17 at 3.00 PM before passing orders. The Court also indicated that it would decide whether it would continue to hear the batch of cases or refer to one High Court for consideration.
CJI concerned over violence
After the hearing concluded, CJI Khanna expressed concern on the violence in West Bengal, and termed it “disturbing.” Mehta added that there was a “phenomenon that you can pressurise the system”.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners told the bench that “of about 8 lakh existing Waqfs, roughly 4 lakh are perhaps by user and that the newly introduced provision, makes them non-existent by one stroke of the pen.”
"We are told Delhi High Court is built on Waqf Land... We are not saying all Waqf by user is wrong, but there is genuine concern," Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna told Singhvi.
The petitioners also cited the SC’s Ayodhya judgement which had recognised that the concept of waqf-by-user is an old concept followed for centuries. Singhvi said that “some of these pernicious provisions, they’ve come into effect immediately. We are seeking a stay.”
Responding to Mehta’s arguments that only registered Waqfs will continue to enjoy waqf by user status, the Chief Justice said, there are two issues that arise – the expressions “in dispute” and “is a government property”.
“What do you mean by the term ‘is in dispute’? It doesn’t say it’s before the court or is otherwise in dispute,” said Justice Khanna. “Second issue is about government property. Now the fact of the matter is, before the Britishers came, we did not have any registration of property… Many of the masjids may have been constructed in 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th centuries. To require them to produce a registered sale deed will be impossible.”
Mehta, however, said “nothing prevented them from going and getting it registered after 1923. It was mandatory.”
'Parliamentary usurpation of faith'
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who led the arguments for the petitioners termed the amendments “a parliamentary usurpation of the faith of 200 million citizens of this country.”
During one exchange, Justice Khanna noted, "When a public trust is declared Waqf 100 or 200 years ago... suddenly you say it is being taken over by the Waqf Board". Mehta intervened and said that it means if one has a Waqf, it can be made into a trust and there is an enabling provision for it. The Chief Justice then remarked: "You cannot rewrite the past!"
Another exchange occurred when the Chief Justice said, "So, as per the Act, eight members are Muslims. Two may not be Muslims. Then the rest are non-Muslims." Solicitor General Mehta then remarked, "Then this bench also cannot hear the case." CJI Khanna retorted: "What? When we sit over here, we lose our religion. For us, both sides are the same. How can you compare it with the judges? Why not have non-muslims also in the advisory board of Hindu endowments then?
"Are you saying that, from now on, you will allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards. Say it openly," the bench said.
"You are dealing with legislation. There was a joint parliamentary committee. 38 sittings were there. It visited many areas... it examined over 98 lakh memoranda. Then it went to both Houses and then the law was passed," Solicitor General Mehta told the court.
Agreeing to hear the matter again at 2 pm on Thursday, Chief Justice Khanna said the violence that took place during protests against the Act was disturbing.
Cluster of petitions from political leaders, civil rights bodies, and Islamic scholars has challenged the Muslim Endowment or Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 before India’s apex court, accusing the government of violating minority rights.
New Waqf law faces legal test in Supreme Court
The new law aimed at reforming the management of Muslim religious endowments—known as waqf properties—has triggered an unprecedented legal battle in the Supreme Court of India.
A host of petitions have been filed challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, with petitioners calling it discriminatory, unconstitutional, and a blatant attack on India’s secular foundations.
The petitions, filed by Delhi legislator Amanatullah Khan, opposition MP Mahua Moitra, the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), and Muslim legal scholars represented by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), argue that the new legislation fundamentally alters the waqf system in India—undermining the rights of the Muslim community to manage their religious and charitable institutions autonomously.
According to Amanatullah Khan, a sitting MLA and former chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, the Act introduces sweeping changes under the guise of reform and “violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution.”
“The legislation enables arbitrary executive interference, curtails religious freedom, and undermines the community’s centuries-old tradition of managing waqf assets,” Khan’s petition asserts.
The amended law, officially titled the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (UMEED), was passed by the Indian Parliament in April 2025 and received Presidential assent shortly thereafter. Among the most contentious changes is the abolition of ‘waqf by user’, a long-standing principle allowing properties used continuously for religious purposes to be recognised as waqf, even without formal deeds.
Another drastic change limits the right to create a waqf only to persons “practising Islam for at least five years,” and makes it mandatory that the individual owns the property being dedicated.
“These provisions are not just exclusionary but also introduce a dangerous precedent of state-administered religious eligibility,” Khan stated in his petition.
The APCR, a national civil liberties group, warned that the UMEED Act poses an existential threat to the autonomy of India’s Muslim minority.
“The overhaul is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and an alarming interference into the religious affairs of the Muslim community,” APCR submitted. “It dilutes the very purpose of waqf, which is rooted in Islamic theological and charitable traditions.”
Quoting the 2006 Sachar Committee Report, the petition emphasised that inefficiencies in waqf administration could have been addressed through advisory mechanisms and community-led reforms, not through “legislative bulldozing.”
The APCR further highlighted the elimination of protections such as independent waqf tribunals, the digital-only registration regime, and the replacement of the term “Muslim experts” in key roles with bureaucratic appointees, some of whom may not even be of the faith.
“It is a targeted dismantling of an ecosystem developed over centuries,” the APCR stated. “Instead of rectifying administrative flaws, it strips the community of its legal safeguards.”
JPC bypassed democratic norms: Mahua Moitra's petition
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra—not a member of the Muslim community—entered the legal fray, citing procedural violations during the legislative process. In her petition, she accused the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) of bypassing democratic norms and suppressing opposition voices.
“The draft report was circulated to members just a day before the scheduled vote, giving them no time to deliberate,” her petition states. “Even worse, dissent notes from 10 opposition MPs were arbitrarily redacted without justification before the report was tabled in Parliament.”
Moitra also raised constitutional objections to the inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, stating that such mandates erode the principle of self-governance in religious affairs.
She contended that Sections 4, 5, 10, 12, 33, and 44 of the new law create a “dual standard” for Muslim endowments compared to those of other religions and violate the doctrine of equal treatment and the freedom to profess and manage religious institutions under Articles 25 and 26.
In a searing petition filed by prominent Islamic scholar Mohammed Fazlurrahim and others, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) condemned the Act as “hostile, discriminatory, and rooted in majoritarian overreach.”
Their petition warns that the new provisions:
Impose ideological gatekeeping by requiring proof of religious practice before allowing waqf creation.
Remove community control by mandating that non-Muslims can serve on waqf governing boards.
Enable land takeover by shifting adjudicatory power to government-appointed collectors, bypassing judicial safeguards.
Dismantle protective legal doctrines, such as the waqf-by-user and exemption from adverse possession under the Limitation Act.
“It is not merely a policy shift but a betrayal of constitutional secularism,” the petition reads. “The Act creates a class of religious endowments uniquely burdened and isolated, turning Muslim religious assets into liabilities under bureaucratic siege.”
The AIMPLB warned that the changes could lead to mass dispossession of waqf assets and a weakening of the institutions that support minority education, health care, and religious welfare.
Common ground
Despite representing different sectors—legislators, activists, scholars—all four petitions converge on a central claim: the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, undermines India’s secular character and violates core constitutional principles.
They collectively argue that the new law:
Violates the right to equality (Article 14) by singling out the Muslim community for additional legal burdens.
Curtails religious freedom (Articles 25 and 26) by interfering in endowment creation and governance.
Erodes the right to manage minority institutions (Articles 29 and 30), thereby weakening educational autonomy.
Deprives individuals of property rights (Article 300A) through vague administrative mechanisms.
The petitions also reference past judicial rulings—from Shirur Mutt to Puttaswamy—asserting that freedom of conscience, religious autonomy, and non-interference are not mere ideals but enforceable constitutional guarantees.
The government, however, defends the UMEED Act as a long-overdue reform aimed at ensuring transparency, eliminating encroachments, and standardising waqf management.
An official from the Ministry of Minority Affairs claimed that the law “streamlines waqf governance, introduces digital accountability, and curbs misuse of waqf lands.”
But Muslim leaders see these justifications as hollow.
“A ceremonial incantation of governance cannot override fundamental rights,” said one petitioner. “The State must be a neutral arbiter—not a religious supervisor.”
They say the case touches on more than religious administration—it strikes at the heart of questions about majoritarianism, state overreach, and the resilience of India’s secular democracy.
“If the law is allowed to stand,” warned APCR’s counsel, “it opens the floodgates for similar encroachments into other religious communities. The Constitution cannot allow such erosion in the name of reform.”
As India’s top court prepares for hearings, the eyes of millions—legal experts, religious leaders, civil rights defenders, and ordinary citizens—will be fixed on the outcome.
Have you liked the news article?