New Delhi: As petitioners, protesting the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, pressurizing the operation of the law on Tuesday for an interim migration, the Supreme Court clarified that the relief would be given if the law amendment in the law has damaged “irreversible” or “irreparable”.
A bench of India’s Chief Justice Bra Gavai and Justice Augustin Maasih told the petitioners that legally constitutionality in favor of every law was estimated. “For interim relief you have to make a very strong and shiny case. Otherwise, constitutionalism would be estimated,” said CJI Gawai.
An interim migration will prevent the government from implementing the law until the apex court gives its final decision on the constitutional validity of the law. Petitioners who have challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 have demanded immediate stay of law.
Show full article
They claim that if the Center and the states are allowed to proceed according to the law, while their petitions are pending in the apex court, their arguments will be made useless. By the time their case is fixed, many assets will lose the status of Waqf, which will spoil the petitions.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal started arguments on behalf of the petitioners. He scored his points on all controversial provisions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the bench to restrict logic on only three issues on interim stay.
Mehta said that the government had filed its written performances on only three issues, which were flagged off by the earlier bench during the hearing on 16 April. It was then that the Center had promised not to work against any registered Waqf properties, including the Waqf-by-User, and appointed new members to either Central Waqf Council or State Waqf boards.
Also read: What is ‘Waqf-by-User’ and why is it at the center of debate on controversial amendments in Waqf Law
‘Manifestly arbitrary’: Sibal
Amendment, Sibal was opposed, was an attempt to capture the vaqf properties through a non-judicial process. “This allows the acquisition of Waqf properties through an executive process,” he presented, impressed to stay in court.
He objected to the section that allows someone who is practicing Muslims for at least five years so that he can donate his property as a Waqf. Sibal said that the provision allows a government official to decide whether any property is Waqf or government land. This provision does not determine a timeline for the officer to submit a report on the character of the land.
However, while the investigation is pending, the land will be lose Its Waqf character. Such property will not be considered as Waqf. And, while the government does not need to contact any tribunal under the new law, the person who is suffering from the report of the investigating officer will have to call for a judicial procedure to reverse the discovery given by an executive authority.
This, he argued, is “most egoistic” and inconsistent with the article of the Constitution that promises equal treatment and equality before the law.
Sibal also explained how the amendments do not give any clarity how to establish someone to establish that he has been a practice for five years and no contradiction is involved in dedicating Waqf.
Change in law, he argued, “Once Waqf, always a Waqf” theory has ended the principle. Whereas under the previous regime, the non-regulation of Waqf properties did not affect the character of the property and the only result was that Muttali was punished.
But the new law is a departure from earlier practice. If no property is registered, she will lose her recognition as Waqf.
Although the law protects the registered WAQF-BY-Ruser properties, the status given to the manufacturer’s details is an impossible, which is an impossible to comply with, he said. If the description of the manufacturer is not provided, it is responsible for punishing the Muttal for six months.
Another provision in the new law, which was opposed, has been opposed, is invalid to a Waqf property when it is declared a protected monument. Earlier, he said, this was not the case.
If a Waqf property was brought under the special law to protect ancient monuments, he did not change the status of the said property or did not interfere with the rights of those who prayed there to use it.
He cited the example of the Delhi Jama Masjid, although notified as a protected area, it could be used as Waqf. All these changes, Sibal said, articles 14 of the Muslim community and violated the right to worship.
The new law, Sibal argued, is against the basic subject of Waqf under which a person can dedicate someone’s personal property as Waqf. He said, “Now, my property is being transported through a legislative dictate” and by a “executive process”, which is devoid of a judicial assistant, he said.
Emphasizing that there should be a legislative argument behind a law, Sibal also flagged off how it affected the fundamental rights of Muslims who belong to Scheduled Tribes. The law invalid the Waqf created in the areas of Scheduled Tribes.
He next highlighted the elimination of the Survey Commissioner’s Office, which, under the previous legal regime, was given the task of conducting the survey before registering a property as Waqf. This entered a detailed survey process, including a list of properties known as Waqf and then their registration.
Sibal also said that if it is in dispute or is a government property, a Waqf property cannot be registered. This dispute will increase the opportunity to stop registration of a property. The fundamental right of the community for litigation is lost as unregistered Waqf cannot implement measures according to the current law. “I can’t go anywhere and cannot register a suit or action. It is clearly arbitrary.” Sibal argued.
He also stated that two controversial provisions- 3 (D) and 3 (E) of the law were not in the original bill. There was no movement and any discussion on them either in the Joint Parliamentary Committee or Parliament. There was no proposal in the JPC report that both these sections would be part of the new law, nor were there provisions in the proposed bill which was broadcast to MPs.
However, special powers were implemented to connect these two classes when the bill was introduced in Parliament.
Section 3 (D) states: “Any announcement or notification issued under any previous Act under this Act or in relation to Waqf properties will be zero, if such property was a protected monument or protected area under ancient monuments.”
Section 3 (E) invalidates Waqf properties in areas with scheduled tribes.
Sibal described it as a disturbing feature, even though he admitted that Malafied could not be the basis of questioning the validity of a law.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also read: 1995 WAQF Act balanced Islamic principles and Indian law. Amendment bill moves scales