SC seeks strong case for interim order from petitioners questioning validity of Waqf Amendment Act

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that there was a presumption of constitutional validity in favour of every statute passed by Parliament and those challenging validity of Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 must make out a very strong and glaring case.

The Union government, for its part, asked the court to confine the hearing for passing interim orders to three issues, including the power to de-notify properties declared as “waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed”.

A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih was urged by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to confine the proceedings to three issues identified by the earlier bench. Mehta said that the Centre has filed its response on three issues.

During the hearing, the court told that for a stay of the statute, a strong case has to be shown.

"There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, presumption of constitutionality will be there," the bench said.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, told the court that they have a strong prima facie case and asserted that "irreparable injury will be caused if the provisions are activated."

Since the arguments remained inconclusive, the court would continue to hear the matter on Wednesday.

The Centre would argue the matter on interim reliefs.

In his arguments, Sibal claimed the 2025 Act have been framed for purposes of protection of waqfs but in reality, it is designed to capture it through a process which is non judicial, executive.

"The law is designed in such a way that waqf property is taken away without following any process. Private properties are being taken away only because of dispute. The officer above collector is appointed to see the dispute, and meanwhile the property is taken away," he contended.

He contended the Centre's law is unconstitutional.

"It is an endowment to Allah/God. This dedication cannot be transferred to anybody. Once a waqf always a waqf," he said.

In his submission, Mehta stated that the court had earlier earmarked three issues.

"We had also filed our response to these three issues. However, the written submissions of the petitioners now exceed several other issues. I have filed my affidavit in response to these three issues. My request is to confine it to the three issues only,” he said.

Making an objection, Sibal and other counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for some petitioners, objected to it and said, there cannot be any piecemeal hearing.

One of the issues, the court had earmarked was the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed. The second issue was in connection with the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contend only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members. The third issue related to a provision that says a waqf property will not be treated as a waqf when the collector conducts an inquiry to ascertain if the property is government land.

Senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan, and Huzefa Ahmadi, also for the petitioners alleged that the Act singled out the Muslim community in the case.

"It is only the Muslim community, where property has been dealt with in this way....A client of mine, who is Sikh, says I want to contribute to the waqf and I believe this property should not be taken away. The entire secular edifice that your lordships have built time and time again (will be taken away)," Dhavan said.

Sibal said that if a waqf property was declared as a protected ancient monument, it did not affect the ownership or use of the property as a Waqf.

He cited the example of the Delhi Jama Masjid, though notified as a protected area, can be used as a Waqf. However, the 2025 Amendment (Section 3D) invalidates Waqf declarations of protected monuments, he contended. This is a violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 25 and 26, he said.

In previous hearings, the Centre gave an assurance that no waqf properties, including those established by user, would be denotified. He assured that no appointments to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards would be made under the 2025 Act, till the next date of hearing.

On April 25, the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs filed a preliminary affidavit defending the amended Waqf Act of 2025. The Centre had opposed any blanket stay by the court on a law having a presumption of constitutionality passed by Parliament.

The Supreme Court had said only five petitions will be treated as lead petition in the matter. The apex court said the other writ petitions will be treated as intervention applications. Over 100 petitions have been filed against the Act so far.