NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on whether to issue an interim order regarding the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, after three days of arguments between the Centre and opposing petitioners.
A key point of contention was the provision requiring that only a practising Muslim of five years could dedicate property as waqf. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the clause, arguing it aligns with the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. “One can only be governed by the 1937 Act if they prove they are Muslim and formally choose to be governed by Sharia law,” Mehta said. “So why object to the new law mandating that only a Muslim can make a waqf?”
He also emphasized the historical misuse of waqf properties, dating back to the 1870s, which necessitated strict registration under the 1923 and 1995 Waqf Acts—including properties falling under ‘waqf by user.’
However, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan, and Huzefa Ahmadi countered that the amendment enables the government to seize long-unregistered ‘waqf by user’ properties—many of which were not recorded due to administrative lapses by state governments. “This would unfairly punish the community,” Sibal argued, asserting that waqf is an essential religious act akin to zakat and protected under the constitutional right of religious denominations to manage their institutions.
Representing the Rajasthan government, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi argued that ‘waqf by user’—a term coined by the Privy Council—lacks legal basis in the 1923 Act and does not involve a formal dedication to Allah.
Meanwhile, senior advocates Ranjit Kumar, Maninder Singh, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan supported the Centre’s position, representing Muslim organisations from Odisha and a waqf board.
The court also heard concerns over alleged overreach by waqf boards. An advocate highlighted the case of a 1,500-year-old Chola-era temple in Tiruchendurai, Tamil Nadu, which was declared waqf property by the state board—preventing villagers from selling land without board approval. She argued that the new law could prevent such controversial claims.
The Supreme Court’s verdict is now awaited.
