The Supreme Court on Thursday took note of the Centre’s request for a week's time to submit its preliminary response in the case concerning the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench that a reply, along with necessary documents, would be filed within seven days.
The court recorded the Centre’s assurance that no appointments would be made to the Waqf Board or the Central Waqf Council until the matter is further heard. It also acknowledged Mehta’s submission that properties registered or declared under the Waqf category, including “waqf by deed” and “waqf by user,” would not be de-notified in the meantime.
Mehta emphasized the legislative nature of the Waqf Act, stating: "The Waqf Act is a considered piece of legislation." He added that the Centre had received numerous representations regarding land classifications as Waqf. Arguing against a blanket stay on the Act, Mehta warned: "Staying the entire Act would be a severe step," and requested time to respond fully.
While noting previous positive observations about parts of the legislation, the court clarified it was not inclined to stay the Act in its entirety. It stressed the importance of maintaining the status quo during the judicial review. "We do not want the current status to be altered while the matter is under consideration," the bench reiterated.
On Wednesday, after a lengthy two-hour hearing, the court hinted at possibly suspending certain key provisions. These included the participation of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards, the role of Collectors in property disputes, and provisions for de-notifying court-declared Waqf properties. Before issuing any interim order, the court decided to hear all parties defending the Act.
The case is being heard by a three-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. During arguments, the bench observed: "We will say that whichever properties have been declared by the court to be Waqf or held to be Waqf will not be de-notified as Waqfs or be treated as non-Waqf properties, whether they are by Waqf-by-user or waqf-by-declaration or otherwise... declared by courts or otherwise also."
The Chief Justice further elaborated: "Second, Collector can continue with proceedings, but the proviso will not be given effect to. If he wants, he can move an application before this court, and we can modify it. Third, as far as the constitution of the Board and Council is concerned, ex officio members can be appointed, regardless of their faith, but the other members should be Muslims."
Commenting on the amended law's provision for de-notifying longstanding Waqf properties, the CJI stated: "Government cannot rewrite history." On including non-Muslims in Waqf institutions, Justice Viswanathan remarked: "Whenever it comes to Hindu endowments, it would be Hindus who would be governing."
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, voiced concern over the authority given to Collectors: "This is per se unconstitutional. This also says that property will not be a Waqf till the officer decides so." Referring to changes in council composition, he added: "Only Muslims had been part of the Waqf council and Boards, but now, after the amendment, even Hindus can be a part of it." Sibal strongly argued: "It is a parliamentary usurpation of the faith of 200 million persons."
Towards the end of the hearing, the bench also addressed reports of violence in West Bengal's Murshidabad district, allegedly linked to the new law. "The one thing is very disturbing—the violence that is taking place. The issue is before the court and we will decide," the bench stated.
Multiple petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Critics argue the legislation discriminates against Muslims and infringes upon their fundamental rights. The bill received presidential assent on April 5 after intense parliamentary debate.
Opposition to the law has come from several political figures and groups, including AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MPs Mohammad Jawed and Imran Pratapgarhi, AAP’s Amanatullah Khan, and members from parties like DMK, CPI, SP, RJD, and others. Religious and civil bodies such as the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, AIMPLB, and various Sunni groups have also filed challenges.
On the other hand, BJP-ruled states and other groups—including Adivasi and Hindu organizations—have filed impleadment applications defending the law. Two PILs have also been submitted, questioning parts of the 1995 and 2025 Acts and urging for equal protections for other communities.
