Supreme Court reserves interim orders, reiterates presumption of constitutionality in Waqf law's favour

The Centre strongly defended the Act, saying waqf by its very nature is a “secular concept” and can't be stayed given the “presumption of constitutionality” in its favour.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on the issue of interim relief in a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, after three days of intensive arguments in which the Centre contended mere legal propositions or hypothetical arguments were insufficient to stay the operation of the law duly enacted by Parliament.

A bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih wrapped up the hearing, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Centre claiming that Waqf management had misused monuments, giving rooms for shops and making unauthorised alterations.

Petitioners led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal opposed the submission, contending, “For that, there are other laws. You cannot take my right over the waqf property because of these issues."

Strongly defending the amendment Act, Mehta submitted that there was no ground for staying a “validly enacted statute” by the competent legislature.

“The very fact that the court has to hear the batch of pleas for interim stay for three days, shows there is nothing ex-facie unconstitutional with the law. Mere legal arguments are insufficient to stay the statute. There is no ground for staying a validly enacted statute by the competent legislature," Mehta submitted.

He contended that creating a Waqf is different than donating to a Waqf, this is why five years practice requirement for Muslims so that Waqf is not used for defrauding someone.

"Suppose I am a Hindu and I want to donate for Waqf, then donation can be made to a Waqf. How can a non-Muslim be allowed to create a Waqf? He can always donate to a Waqf," Mehta said.

Claiming that pleas were filed without any proper materials to support, Mehta said that mere legal propositions or hypothetical arguments do not justify halting the operation of a law duly enacted by the Parliament.

Sibal asked if Waqfs used for religious purposes can be stripped of the status merely for being unregistered.

"Can the government for its own fault of not conducting surveys now claim Waqf properties as government land by a legislative fiat," Sibal asked.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, supported the 2025 Act. He said that ‘waqf by user’ is not a core practice of Islam, as it did not involve any formal dedication. It was merely a way of holding land as waqf through adverse possession.

Senior advocate Ranjeet Kumar appearing for Haryana government and a tribal organisation supporting the 2025 Amendments, said in Rajasthan, a Waqf claim was made over a 500-acre land given for mining purposes.

Mehta also submitted that the dedication of land as waqf is permanent and irreversible. Therefore, land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes cannot be dedicated as Waqf, he said.

"The state restricts the alienation of tribal land to protect tribal communities. Otherwise, anyone could become a mutawalli (Manager of waqf property) and misuse the waqf to their detriment," he said.

Mehta further argued that Muslim tribals are being victimised.

“There may be differing points of view, but that cannot be a ground to stay the operation of a duly enacted law,” he said.

In previous hearings, the Centre gave an assurance that no waqf properties, including those established by user, would be denotified. It said 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 2025 Act.