New Delhi, May 20, 2025 –Today, the Supreme Court of India started a big hearing to look at a group of petitions that say the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 is not constitutional. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih are on the bench and are hearing requests for temporary orders while there is a lot of arguing over the controversial changes to the Waqf Act.
The proceedings, which started at 03:29 PM IST, have attracted a lot of attention because of what they mean for the rights of Muslims and property management in India.
The Case’s Background On April 4, 2025, the Indian Parliament enacted the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, which made big changes to the Waqf Act of 1995. The next day, the president signed it into law. The changes are meant to make managing waqf property more efficient, but they have caused a lot of anger. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, and political parties like the DMK and CPI all say that the Act goes against Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, which protect religious freedom and property rights. Some of the most important parts that are being looked at are the addition of non-Muslims to Waqf Boards, the abolition of the “waqf by user” idea, and new rules for who can create a waqf, such as the need to have been a Muslim for at least five years.
The Case’s Background On April 4, 2025, the Indian Parliament enacted the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, which made big changes to the Waqf Act of 1995. The next day, the president signed it into law. The changes are meant to make managing waqf property more efficient, but they have caused a lot of anger. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, and political parties like the DMK and CPI all say that the Act goes against Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, which protect religious freedom and property rights. Some of the most important parts that are being looked at are the addition of non-Muslims to Waqf Boards, the abolition of the “waqf by user” idea, and new rules for who can create a waqf, such as the need to have been a Muslim for at least five years.
On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court combined many petitions under the name In re: Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 and told the Union government to produce a single response. The court also gave an interim order that waqf properties may not be denotified or changed until the next hearing. Today’s session marks a critical juncture in the legal battle, with both sides presenting arguments on the Act’s constitutional validity and its potential impact on India’s Muslim community.
Live Updates from the Courtroom
03:29 PM IST: Live Law announced the start of the Supreme Court hearing, with CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih presiding over the case. The bench is specifically tasked with considering pleas for interim orders to stay certain provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.
06:07 PM IST: The matter officially commenced, as reported by Live Law. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, opened the arguments by alleging that the Act facilitates a “capture of entire waqf” through non-judicial and executive means. Sibal objected to the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta’s suggestion to limit arguments to three predefined issues, stating, “This is a case of capture of entire waqf, my learned friend cannot say you have to agree on three issues.”
06:09 PM IST: SG Mehta outlined the three issues the government believes the arguments should focus on:
- Properties declared as waqfs by courts should not be denotified during the hearing, whether they are waqf-by-user or waqf by deed.
- The proviso in the Amendment Act, which allows a property to be treated as non-waqf during a Collector’s inquiry into whether it is government land, should not be enforced.
- All members of Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except for ex-officio members.
Sibal and other counsel objected to this restriction, arguing that the April 17 order did not intend to truncate the broader issues at stake. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi emphasized, “It was not for the truncation of issues.”
06:12 PM IST: Tensions rose as SG Mehta insisted on confining arguments to the three issues, citing the court’s earlier order. Sibal countered, “My learned friend will realize, the court asked for answers on 3 issues,” while CJI Gavai humorously remarked, “I am feeling happy that I have 6 months here… my experience at high courts for many years is still better than 6 years here,” reflecting on the complexity of the case.
06:15 PM IST: Sibal elaborated on the petitioners’ concerns, arguing that the 2025 Act is designed to enable the “capture of waqf” through executive processes rather than judicial ones. He highlighted that private properties are being taken away based on disputes, with an officer above the rank of Collector appointed to adjudicate, during which time the property is stripped of its waqf status. “Anybody can create disputes,” Sibal warned, pointing out the lack of a defined procedure. CJI Gavai questioned, “Without following the process?” prompting further discussion on the procedural flaws.
06:17 PM IST: Sibal explained the historical and religious significance of waqf properties, noting that a waqf is an endowment to Allah, making it inalienable—once a waqf, always a waqf. He argued that the state cannot finance religious institutions under the Constitution, and thus, waqf properties, such as burial grounds, rely on community charity for maintenance. “If there is a mosque, the State cannot finance. If there is a burial ground, it has to be created through private property… people come to bury their loved ones,” he stated. CJI Gavai acknowledged similar practices in other religious contexts, mentioning his visits to dargahs.
06:20 PM IST: Sibal traced the legislative history of waqf laws, from 1913 to 2025, arguing that the 2025 Act marks a “complete departure” from past frameworks. He criticized the removal of the “waqf by user” concept, a long-standing practice where properties used for religious purposes over time are recognized as waqf, even without formal documentation. “This has been done away—a concept recognized in Babri Masjid,” Sibal noted, referencing the Ayodhya judgment.
06:22 PM IST: The bench sought clarity on the registration requirements for waqf properties. Sibal explained that while registration was mandatory under previous acts (using the term “shall”), there were no consequences for non-registration, such as changing the nature of the waqf. The 2025 Act, however, stipulates that unregistered waqfs will no longer be regarded as waqf, a significant shift. CJI Gavai recorded the submission: “If not registered under the previous act, the consequences were not provided.”
06:24 PM IST: The court further noted that under the 2013 Act, while registration was required, the only consequence for non-compliance was the removal of the mutawali (custodian), not the alteration of the waqf’s character. Sibal emphasized that the 2025 Act fundamentally changes this by altering the character of unregistered waqfs.
06:26 PM IST: On the issue of waqf by user, Sibal clarified that prior to 2013, such waqfs did not require registration, a practice the 2025 Act seeks to abolish. The bench recorded: “Waqf by user prior to 2013 was not required to be registered.”
06:28 PM IST: The court sought historical context, asking whether registration for waqf by user was mandatory before 1954. Sibal corrected the timeline, stating that registration became necessary after 1923. Amid some confusion, CJI Gavai humorously noted the “pressure” and “discordant voices” in the courtroom, while SG Mehta pointed out that Sibal was being continuously disturbed.
06:32 PM IST: Sibal raised concerns about the impact of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Acts of 1904 and 1958 on waqf properties. He argued that while these acts allowed the government to declare waqf properties like Jama Masjid as ancient monuments, ownership was never transferred, and religious practices were preserved. The 2025 Act, however, enables a “complete takeover and ownership” if a property is declared an ancient monument, potentially violating Article 25 (freedom to practice religion).
06:35 PM IST: CJI Gavai questioned whether such declarations prevent religious practices, citing his recent visit to Khajuraho, where a temple under archaeological custody still allows devotees to pray. Sibal countered that the 2025 Act’s provisions could take away the right to religious practice, violating Articles 25 and 26. The court recorded this submission, despite SG Mehta’s objection that it was factually incorrect.
06:40 PM IST: Sibal challenged the Act’s requirement that a person must have practiced Islam for five years to create a waqf, calling it “per se unconstitutional.” “Who will decide that? I guess they will come home,” he quipped, arguing that this provision infringes on religious rights under Articles 25 and 26. He also highlighted provisions affecting Scheduled Castes and Tribes, where waqf properties in such areas could be declared non-waqf, leading to “expropriation on the face of it.”
06:45 PM IST: Sibal criticized the composition of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards under the 2025 Act, noting that the majority of members could be non-Muslims (12 non-Muslims versus 10 Muslims in the Council). Additionally, all members are now nominated rather than elected, which Sibal described as a “conceptual capture of waqf.” The court recorded this submission, with CJI Gavai asking for clarification on whether the majority “can be” or “will be” non-Muslim.
06:47 PM IST: Further, Sibal pointed out that the CEO of the Waqf Board, previously required to be Muslim, can now be a non-Muslim under the 2025 Act. Justice Masih sought clarification, noting that the Act does not explicitly state “non-Muslim,” but Sibal emphasized the omission of the earlier requirement as an “attempt to take over through creeping accusations.”
06:48 PM IST: Wrapping up his arguments, Sibal broadly outlined the petitioners’ issues with the Act, urging the court to consider the implications of these provisions. CJI Gavai cautioned that for interim relief, the petitioners must make out a “very glaring case,” given the presumption of constitutionality for legislation.
06:49 PM IST: Sibal responded by asserting that the petitioners had established a prima facie case and that “irreparable injury” would be caused if the Act’s provisions were activated, justifying the need for interim relief.
Broader Context and Reactions
The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 has sparked widespread debate and protests across India. On April 19, 2025, hundreds of Muslims in Cuttack, Odisha, and Hyderabad protested against the Act, demanding its withdrawal for infringing on their constitutional and religious rights. Political parties like the Kerala Communist Government have also approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the Act deviates from the principles of the 1995 Waqf Act and undermines Muslim religious autonomy.
Social media reactions have been polarized.
@MahaRathii
criticized the Kerala government for prioritizing “vote bank appeasement” over the plight of 600+ fishing families in Munambam, who face eviction due to the Kerala Waqf Board’s claim over 404 acres. Meanwhile,
@Tushar15_
accused Sibal of defending the “unlimited power” of the Waqf Board under the 1995 Act, particularly the now-removed Section 40, which allowed the Board to acquire land arbitrarily.
What’s Next?
Today, the Supreme Court will hear a case that will have a big impact on the Waqf Amendment Act 2025. The bench’s ruling on interim orders might have a big effect on how the Act is carried out, especially when it comes to denotifying waqf properties and making Waqf Boards. As the hearing goes on, everyone is watching the court to see if it will agree with the petitioners that the government has broken the law or with the administration’s call for more openness and reform in the way waqf is run.
