Centre seeks seven days to file reply in Waqf Act case; SC rules out complete stay

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday recorded the Centre’s request for additional time to file a response in the matter related to the Waqf Act. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that a preliminary reply will be filed within seven days, along with relevant documents.

The court took note of the Solicitor General’s assurance that no appointments to the Waqf Board or Council will be made until the next hearing. The court also stated that existing Waqf properties, including those registered by the user or declared through notification, will not be identified.

The Solicitor General said that the Waqf Act is a considered piece of legislation and that the Centre has received a large number of representations regarding the classification of land as Waqf. He added that staying the entire Act would be a severe step and sought one week to submit a reply.

The Supreme Court stated that it had earlier noted some aspects of the legislation as positive and reiterated that there can be no complete stay of the Act at this stage. The court also said that it does not want the current status to be altered while the matter is under its consideration.

The bench reiterated that the objective is to maintain the existing situation without changes while the matter remains under judicial review.

Earlier on Wednesday, following a two-hour-long hearing, the apex court indicated that it may stay certain key provisions of the Act, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards, powers of Collectors on deciding disputes over Waqf properties and provisions on de-notifying properties declared as Waqf by courts.

The top court was about to dictate the order, but Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, and other counsels who were appearing for parties defending the Act said they should be heard before passing the interim order.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan are hearing the case.

During the hearing yesterday, the bench had said that it was considering passing an interim order that would balance equities.

“We will say that whichever properties have been declared by the court to be Waqf or held to be Waqf will not be de-notified as Waqfs or be treated as non-Waqf properties, whether they are by Waqf-by-user or waqf-by-declaration or otherwise… declared by courts or otherwise also,” the bench had said.

“Second, Collector can continue with proceedings, but the proviso will not be given effect to. If he wants, he can move an application before this court, and we can modify it. Third, as far as the constitution of the Board and Council is concerned, ex officio members can be appointed, regardless of their faith, but the other members should be Muslims,” the CJI had added.

CJI had observed that “government cannot rewrite history” through the changes brought in by the amendments to Waqf law while referring to the scope under the new Act to de-notify properties declared as Waqf long ago.

On the issue of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and Councils, the bench had said that the nearest example is the Hindu Charitable Endowments Act.

“Whenever it comes to Hindu endowments, it would be Hindus who would be governing,” Justice Viswanathan had said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, had said that a Collector is the officer designated to decide whether a property is Waqf or not; if there is a dispute, this person is a part of the government and is thus a judge in his own cause.

“This is per se unconstitutional. This also says that property will not be a Waqf till the officer decides so. Only Muslims had been part of the Waqf council and Boards, but now, after the amendment, even Hindus can be a part of it,” he had contended.

“It is a parliamentary usurpation of the faith of 200 million persons,” Sibal had added.

At the fag end of the hearing, the bench had also expressed concern over violence in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district over the Act and said, “The one thing is very disturbing the violence that is taking place. The issue is before the court and we will decide.”

Several petitions were filed in the apex court challenging the Act, contending that it was discriminatory towards the Muslim community and violated their fundamental rights.

President Droupadi Murmu on April 5 gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which was earlier passed by Parliament after heated debates in both Houses.

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MPs Mohammad Jawed and Imran Pratapgarhi, MP Mahua Moitra, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, MLA from National People’s Party India (NPP) party in Manipur Sheikh Noorul Hassan, MP and President of the Azad Samaj Party Chandra Shekhar Azad, Samajwadi Party MP from Sambhal Zia Ur Rehman Barq, President of the Islamic cleric’s body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind Maulana Arshad Madani, Kerala Sunni scholars’ body Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema, Social Democratic Party of India, Indian Union Muslim League, and NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights have already approached the top court against the Act.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) also challenged the Act, saying it strongly objected to the amendments passed by Parliament for being “arbitrary, discriminatory and based on exclusion”.

Manoj Jha and Faiyaz Ahmad, MPs in Rajya Sabha from Bihar’s RJD, have also challenged the Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on the grounds that it facilitates large-scale government interference in Muslim religious endowments. RJD MLA from Bihar Muhammad Izhar Asfi also challenged the Act.

The ruling party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu, through its MP A Raja, who was a part of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf Bill, also approached the apex court against the Act. The Communist Party of India, through its General Secretary D Raja, YSR Congress, and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) President and actor Vijay, have also challenged the Act, among others.

Defending the Act, BJP-led governments in the states of Rajasthan, Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh approached the apex court and filed impleadment applications.

Apart from state governments, advocate Mahendra Pratap Singh; Aadivasi Seva Mandal; Jay Omkar Bhilala Samajh Sangathan —organisations operating for the protection of rights of Tribals in Madhya Pradesh; Satish Kumar Aggarwal — a member of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha; and Vishnu Gupta— National President of NGO Hindu Sena—also filed applications while opposing the petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act.

Two PILs were also filed challenging the various provisions of the Waqf Act,1995 and certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, alleging discrimination against other communities and demanding equal status and safeguards for their properties. (ANI)