Waqf act: Petitioners refute Centre’s ‘116% property rise’ claim
The petitioners have urged the court to stay the Act, arguing it changes a legal position that has existed for 125 years.
Petitioners challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 have told the Supreme Court that the Centre’s claim of a “shocking” 116% increase in waqf properties since 2013 is “misleading” and based on suppressed facts.
In a detailed response filed by advocate Talha Abdul Rahman ahead of Monday’s crucial hearing, the petitioners argue that the Centre has misrepresented data by failing to mention that properties counted as “new” were actually waqfs registered before 2013 but later updated on the Waqf Asset Management System of India (WAMSI) portal.
Also Read: SC refuses to entertain fresh petitions challenging Waqf (Amendment) Act
“It appears that a public official, who is also the in-charge of the said portal, has either deliberately suppressed this fact or casually made this chart to falsely depict a picture which does not exist,” the affidavit states. The petitioners call the government’s claim “unsupported and amounts to scurrilous allegation in pleading.”
The response comes after the Centre on April 25 filed a preliminary affidavit justifying the 2025 Act, in which it claimed that total waqf land before 2013, including the pre-independence era, was approximately 18 lakh (1.8 million) acres, with an additional 20 lakh (2 million) acres added between 2013 and 2024. The government described this as a “shocking” 116% increase, arguing that the law was necessary to manage waqf properties amid complaints of encroachment on government and private land.
Also Read: Shimla’s Sanjauli mosque unauthorised, MC chief orders building’s demolition
The petitioners have urged the court to stay the Act, arguing it changes a legal position that has existed for 125 years and reflects “a distrusting view on Muslims to manage their own affairs.” They note that the law is being altered “after 75 years of having attained freedom.”
Pointing to discrepancies in government data, the petitioners state that while official figures claim 665,476 waqf properties exist in 2025, data from CEOs of Waqf Boards shows only 330,008 properties. They explain that the WAMSI portal counts “Waqf Estates” - which may comprise land, buildings, warehouses, dargahs, graveyards, etc., as one property if created by a common waqif through the same instrument - differently than individual properties.
“Obviously, in that situation the waqf estate will be one and different units of the same estate will be part of the same estate,” the affidavit said.
On the question of staying the law, the petitioners cite previous cases including challenges to the Maratha reservation law, the now-repealed farm laws, and OBC reservations in central educational institutions where courts stayed implementation pending hearings.
“Stay on a statute is a matter of judicial discretion when the court is satisfied that the law is ex facie unconstitutional, or considering the balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest,” the affidavit states.
The petitioners argue that the Act gives “sweeping powers to the collector, deletion of waqf by user, presumption of government properties by operation of law” and risks “obliterating the status of lakhs of unregistered waqf properties in one go without any rational or material basis.”
Responding to the Centre’s argument about essential religious practices, the petitioners assert that charity is fundamental to Islam and includes the right to manage properties as a community. They point out that the Centre’s interference is only permissible on issues of “public order, health or morality, each of which does not arise in this case.”
“Therefore, the test of ‘essential religious practice’ is not triggered,” the petitioners argue, adding that the government “cannot invoke essential religious practice test to escape the legal challenge.”
The petitioners urge the court to examine the law not only under Articles 25 and 26 (religious freedom and property administration) but also Articles 14 (equality), 19 (fundamental freedoms), and 21 (life and liberty).
The Centre had cited Article 26(d) of the Constitution, which requires administering properties “in accordance with law,” to justify legislative regulation. It argued that the reforms serve “compelling objectives of transparency, accountability, social welfare and inclusive governance.”
The government also maintained that the concept of waqf by user originated when “writing or executing deeds for anything was a rare phenomenon,” but mandatory registration since 1923 means “those who deliberately evaded or avoided to get ‘waqf by user’ registered cannot claim the benefits of the proviso.”
The petitioners counter that “the consequence of refusing waqf status to a property on account of non-registration under the new law cannot be accepted.”
The Supreme Court, which will hear the matter on Monday, has indicated it will hear only five lead petitioners on the constitutional questions raised. These include Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president Arshad Madani, social worker Muhammad Jameel Merchant, AIMPLB general secretary Mohammed Fazlurrahim, Manipur MLA Sheikh Noorul Hassan, and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi.
The court had earlier recorded the Centre’s assurance not to change the status of waqf properties or appoint non-Muslims to waqf bodies until further orders.
