The Supreme Court, while considering petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, held that a statute enjoys a presumption of constitutionality and any interim relief seeking to stay the Act must demonstrate a strong and glaring case. The matter involved a challenge to various provisions of the amended Waqf law, which the petitioners argued encroach upon the religious and property rights of the Muslim community. The Court observed, “For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, presumption of constitutionality will be there.”
The petitions before the Court challenge the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, alleging that its provisions undermine the religious and administrative autonomy of the Muslim community over Waqf properties. The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, heard the matter extensively. The hearing focused on whether interim orders could be passed staying the operation of the statute. The petitioners, led by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan, Chander Uday Singh, and Huzefa Ahmadi, raised concerns over specific provisions, including the requirement of five years of practising Islam to create a Waqf, the dilution of Muslim representation on Waqf Boards, and the invalidation of waqf declarations over protected monuments.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the amendments were designed to effectuate a non-judicial takeover of Waqf properties by the government. He contended that Section 3D, which annuls waqf declarations for protected monuments, violates Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. He also criticised the removal of the Survey Commissioner’s office and the delegation of survey duties to district administration, terming it counterproductive.
Sibal further challenged provisions that prohibit registration of waqf properties if there is a pending dispute or a claim of government ownership. He contended this could paralyse the legal remedies available to aggrieved parties, stating, “If my property is not registered, I can’t go to the Tribunal. The consequence is—takeover the community’s property and don’t allow them a remedy. This is manifestly arbitrary.”
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan submitted that the exclusion of Muslim-created trusts from the Waqf Act's scope (as per the proviso to Section 3A) would affect many existing properties. He also raised concern over the restriction that only Muslims can create waqfs, highlighting its adverse impact on certain individuals from other communities who wish to dedicate their property as waqf.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi drew parallels with the Supreme Court’s interim stay in the 2021 farm laws case, arguing for similar relief. He also refuted the Union’s claims of exponential growth in Waqf properties post-2013 as misleading.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi criticised the amendment making the Limitation Act applicable to waqf matters under Section 107. He argued that the imposition of limitation would preclude the challenge of wrongful declarations of evacuee properties. He also stated that the “five-year Islamic practice” clause was vague and could lead to intrusive scrutiny of personal religious conduct.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, urged the Court to confine the arguments to the three issues previously flagged by the bench on April 16. He submitted that while the Centre had responded to these three issues, the petitioners had filed broader written submissions covering many more aspects. SG Mehta emphasised that the Court had not granted liberty to expand the scope of hearing beyond the identified questions.
The bench made it clear that every statute is presumed to be constitutionally valid unless a compelling case is made out. CJI Gavai orally remarked, “There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case.”
When Sibal raised concern over non-Muslim members being allowed in Waqf Boards, the Court disagreed with his reading, observing that only two non-Muslims could be nominated apart from ex-officio members. However, Sibal responded, “Even two is too many,” pointing out that laws governing Hindu endowments do not allow such appointments.
The bench also noted Sibal’s submission that the amendment fundamentally alters the waqf regime by introducing consequences for non-registration, undermining the established principle of "once a waqf, always a waqf."
At the end of the session, the Court declined to allow further arguments from Advocate Nizam Pasha, noting that sufficient time had already been given to the petitioners. The matter will continue with the submissions from the Union Government. The Court had earlier recorded the Centre’s assurance that it would not enforce certain contentious provisions of the Act until further hearing.
Picture Source :
