New Delhi, Aug 22 (UNI) The Supreme Court today refused to urgently list for hearing an interim plea challenging the mandatory registration of all waqfs, including waqf-by-users, under the new digital framework introduced by the Centre.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai reminded counsel that interim orders in the waqf case had already been reserved on May 22 and said no fresh application could be entertained at this stage.
The plea was mentioned in the backdrop of the Centre’s launch of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Central Portal on June 6.
The portal seeks to create a digital inventory of all waqf properties after geo-tagging them and mandates uploading details of all registered waqf properties within six months.
Counsel appearing before the Court submitted that the portal required “mandatory registration of all waqfs, including waqfs by users,” and argued that in practice, waqf-by-users cannot be registered.
The lawyer said that an interim application had been sought for directions, but the registry refused to accept it on the ground that the judgment in the matter was already reserved.
Responding to these submissions, the CJI said, “We have already reserved the order in the matter,” while noting that the aspect of difficulties in registration may be dealt with later. “You register it… Nobody is refusing you the registration,” the Court observed.
The Supreme Court had reserved interim orders on May 22 on three crucial questions arising from the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
These included the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts, waqf-by-users or waqf by deed; the composition of State Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council; and a new provision which states that a waqf property will not be treated as such if the collector, after an inquiry, concludes that it is government land.
The Centre has strongly defended the law and the portal, contending that waqf by its nature is a “secular concept” and could not be put in abeyance.
With the Supreme Court keeping its interim order reserved, the issue of compliance with the six-month registration window will now depend on the Court’s final directions.
