New Delhi, Jan 16 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Mutawalli alleging technical glitches in the Central Government’s UMEED Portal used for uploading details of Waqf properties.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while dismissing the petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities for redressal of grievances.
“We see no ground to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner may be well advised to approach the prescribed authority for clarification or addressing of grievances,” the Bench observed.
At the outset, the Court questioned why the petitioner had directly approached the Supreme Court instead of the High Court.
Responding, Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that High Courts were reluctant to entertain such matters as challenges to the 2025 amendments to the waqf law were already pending before the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice, however, noted that the petition essentially raised issues of “administrative difficulties” rather than a substantive challenge to the statutory provisions, which could be addressed by the High Court or the concerned authorities.
Guruswamy further argued that apart from technical difficulties, the petitioner was aggrieved by the classification under the Waqf Rules, where the category of “waqf by survey” was treated as part of “waqf by user,” and that the UMEED Portal did not provide a separate option for “waqf by survey” in its drop-down menu.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that the Ministry had clarified that “waqf by survey” stood subsumed under the category of “waqf by user.” He observed that this issue could not be described merely as a technical glitch, but was related to the legality of classification, which was already under consideration in other pending petitions before the Court.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had, in fact, uploaded details under the “waqf by user” category and that, being a registered waqf, no dilution of rights would occur by such classification.
Justice Bagchi also clarified that registration of waqfs was a pre-existing requirement and that the 2025 amendment only mandated uploading of data on the portal.
“Registration and uploading are different. Uploading is just a data entry,” the Court observed.
The writ petition, filed under Article 32 by a Mutawalli from Madhya Pradesh, had challenged the enforceability of the digital uploading requirement under Section 3B of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995.
The petitioner claimed that the UMEED Portal, notified under the UMEED Rules, 2025, was structurally defective and technologically unfit to register survey and gazette-notified waqfs, particularly in Madhya Pradesh, where such waqfs predominate.
The petition sought a declaration that the portal, in its present form, could not be enforced and also prayed for directions to the union Government to rectify the alleged defects or create a separate upload mechanism for survey and gazette-notified waqfs.
It further sought protection against any penal or coercive action for non-uploading of waqf details.
The Bench, however, declined to grant any relief, reiterating that such grievances could be taken up before the appropriate authorities or forums.
