Supreme Court bars non-Muslim appointments to Waqf bodies, stays property denotification till next hearing

During the hearing, the court said only five writ petitions would be considered and the remaining would be treated as disposed of, as it is impossible to deal with 100 or 120 petitions.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday made the Union government to assure that no appointment to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf board would be made and the waqf properties declared or registered as waqf-by-users would not be denotified till the next date of hearing.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Vishwanathan recorded a statement by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Union government in this regard, even though he contended that the court should not take harsh stand by indirectly staying the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.

"We don't want the situation to change. There are provisions like 5 years (practice of Islam) which we are not staying," the bench said hearing a batch of petitions challenging validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

Mehta said the government will file a response within seven days and till the next date, no appointment to the Council or Board would take place. He also said till the next date, the character of the waqf-by-users would not change.

The court allowed the petitioners to file a rejoinder within five days. It fixed the matter for consideration on May 5, 2025.

Initially, Mehta said, he has been working to answer questions posed by the court on Wednesday.

He said the court should not stay the law by reading just a few Sections.

"There was many amendments and committees and lakhs of representations were made. Villages are being taken away and private properties are taken away as waqf," he said.

He said nothing would change, if the court heard the parties.

He said that he would have to take the court through the history of legislation, the 1923 Act, which is a hundred years back, followed by 1935, followed by 1954, followed by an amendment in 1984. Mehta submitted that it is a matter where the court would require assistance, as it would affect either a large number of innocent people, their right to land, or their right to property.

Mehta also said there was a committee recommendation followed by 1995 and the amendment.

"We as a government and as a Parliament, are answerable to the people. We received lakhs and lakhs of representations, which resulted in some of the provisions being made," Mehta said.

He contended that for example, villages and villages are taken as Waqf, private properties of individuals are taken as Waqf, and, defending the recent changes to the Waqf law, stressed that it is a considered piece of legislation. The bench said it is not deciding the matter now.

"If the legislation were to be put on hold, partly or indirectly, it would be a "harsh step", he said.

Mehta asked the court to grant him a week’s time to bring on record his preliminary reply.

The bench said, "It’s like this, we had a particular situation," and maybe there are "infirmities", and "we also said there are certain positive things (about the new law)".

"Somebody did say there should be a complete stay. We said nothing doing… At the same time, we don't want the situation to change… We don't want whatever situation today is prevailing to change so drastically that it affects," the bench said.

The court said one of the thumb rules, which the courts apply, is that they don't put on hold the legislation at the preliminary stage. At the same time, there's another thumb rule, which is that when the matter is pending for consideration before the court, the situation as it is prevailing today should continue so as not to upset the rights of the parties, the bench said.

During the hearing, the court said only five writ petitions would be considered and the remaining would be treated as intervention applications, as it is impossible to deal with 100 or 120 petitions.

The court ordered the writ petitions challenging the 1995 Waqf Act and amendments made in 2013 would be separately shown in the list. The court appointed advocates Ejaz Maqbool, Vishnu Shankar Jain and Kanu Agarwal as nodal counsel for the Centre.

The court clarified that the hearing fixed on the next date will be a preliminary hearing and, if required, interim orders will be passed.

On Wednesday, the court proposed to hold the properties declared by courts as waqfs should not be de-notified, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed, as it took up a batch of a matter challenging the validity of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

The court also indicated to pass the order that the proviso of the Amendment Act, as per which a waqf property will not be treated as a waqf while the Collector is conducting inquiry whether the property is a government land, will not be given effect to.

The court also felt that all members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.

Taking up challenge to validity of the amendment act, the bench indicated to pass the tentative interim order as it decided to consider the matter on Thursday as well, on a request made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the central government.