New Delhi, May 20, (UNI) In a significant hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court examined petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 for over three hours, focusing primarily on the issue of interim relief.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih heard arguments centred on whether to grant a stay on the amended law.
During the session, CJI Gavai emphasised that a “very strong and glaring case” must be made out for any statute to be stayed. “There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, a very strong case is required. Otherwise, this presumption will prevail,” the CJI observed.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, asserted that the 2025 amendments posed an imminent threat of “irreparable injury” if implemented. He claimed the petitioners had a solid prima facie case against the amendments.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, requested the court to limit the hearing to three specific issues, as identified by the previous bench on April 16. He noted that the petitioners’ written submissions exceeded this scope.
“The court had confined the hearing to three issues. We submitted our response accordingly. However, the petitioners have now broadened the scope. My affidavit addresses only those three issues,” SG Mehta argued.
In response, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed any narrowing of the hearing.
Sibal contended that no such restriction was placed by the court in its earlier order, stating that the nature of the challenge required a comprehensive hearing.
CJI Gavai remarked that the bench would proceed based on the court record and invited Sibal to begin his submissions.
Opening his arguments, Sibal strongly criticized the 2025 amendments, stating that they were intended to “capture Waqfs” by granting government officers quasi-judicial powers.
He objected to the provision that allows a government official to decide whether Waqf land is encroaching on state property a move he called unconstitutional.
He further argued that the amendments nullified the principle of “once a Waqf, always a Waqf.” Under earlier laws, non-registration of Waqf properties did not affect their validity, and only resulted in penalties for the caretaker (Muttawalli). But under the new law, non-registration could strip a property of its Waqf status entirely.
The bench noted this submission, stating, “From 1913 to 2023, though registration of Waqf was mandated, no serious consequences followed except removal of the Muttawalli. The 2025 amendments depart from this framework.”
Sibal also highlighted challenges surrounding Waqf-by-user, noting that requiring identification of the original creator is problematic, particularly for centuries-old properties. If the creator’s details are not provided, the Muttawalli now faces up to six months’ imprisonment.
Another contentious issue raised was the amendment’s impact on religious structures declared as protected monuments under the AMASR Act.
Sibal argued that the law invalidates Waqf declarations for such properties, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. Citing the Delhi Jama Masjid as an example, he said the mosque continues to function as a Waqf despite being a protected monument.
The hearing will continue on Wednesday, with further arguments expected from both sides.
