The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, began hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which was recently enacted by Parliament.
During the proceedings, Chief Justice Gavai underscored a fundamental principle of constitutional law, laws passed by Parliament carry a presumption of constitutionality. He remarked that judicial intervention is warranted only when a clear and compelling case is established, especially in matters involving legislative competence or fundamental rights.
The Court had earlier framed three primary concerns for adjudication:
-
The concept of Waqf by user,
-
The appointment of non-Muslim members to the Central and State Waqf Boards, and
-
The classification of government land as Waqf property.
The Union Government, through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, informed the Bench that its response addressing these three focal points had been filed. He urged that the scope of the hearing be confined to these issues alone, citing the petitioners’ written submissions had ventured beyond the pre-defined scope.
However, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, strongly objected. Singhvi contended that the earlier Bench, led by the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had not restricted the hearing solely to those issues and had indicated that interim relief would be considered. "We cannot now limit ourselves to only those three concerns. The matter requires holistic examination," he submitted.
Kapil Sibal argued that the new law was structured in a manner that facilitated state control over Waqf propertieswithout ensuring procedural safeguards. He also raised constitutional objections to the provision requiring that only individuals who have practised Islam for a minimum of five years can create a Waqf. "Even if someone is on their deathbed and wishes to dedicate property as Waqf, they must prove religious practice. This violates constitutional freedoms," Sibal argued.
Responding to Sibal’s critique, CJI Gavai reiterated that judicial review must be exercised cautiously, especially when legislation has been recently enacted. “Unless a glaring unconstitutionality is demonstrated, courts must refrain from stepping in,” he observed.
Sibal further highlighted another contentious clause in the amended Act, which empowers village panchayats or private individuals to challenge the status of Waqf property, upon which the matter would be determined by a government officer. "The officer becomes a judge in his own cause, with no effective checks. This undermines property rights," he submitted, adding that Waqf pertains to private ownership and cannot be converted into state property through legislative overreach.
The matter is currently sub judice, and the Supreme Court’s detailed examination of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is ongoing. Further developments and judicial pronouncements are awaited. Stay tuned for updates as the case progresses.
Picture Source :