E-Paper
SC refuses to stay registration of Waqf properties on central portal
The Supreme Court upheld a government directive to register waqf properties digitally within six months while reviewing the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stay a Union government notification mandating registration of all waqf properties on a centralised digital portal within six months, directing individuals and organisations to comply with the requirement while the court considers the validity of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.
A bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai made it clear that the court cannot stay the June 6 notification issued by the ministry of minority affairs until it delivers its reserved judgment on petitions challenging the 2025 law.
“What can be the problem in complying with the direction? You register your properties within six months, as the notification says. When we will pass our order, everything will be subject to our direction,” justice Gavai told a lawyer seeking interim relief.
When counsel pressed for a stay, pointing out that the registry had refused to list their application since the case was already reserved, the Chief Justice responded: “How can we pass an interim order when the judgment has been reserved in the issue? Sorry! You comply with whatever is required. We will consider everything in our order.”
The notification requires all waqf properties to be registered on the UMEED (Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development) portal within six months of its June 6 launch. According to the Centre, the platform seeks to create a centralised, transparent repository of waqf property details, including photographs and geotagged locations.
Properties not registered within the timeframe risk being treated as disputed and potentially referred to a tribunal.
The petitions challenging the Act were argued over three days in May, after which the bench, also comprising justice AG Masih, reserved orders on May 22. During those hearings, the court noted that maintaining an inventory of waqf properties has been part of the legal framework for over a century.
“From 1923 till 2025, for over 100 years, the scheme of various enactments had emphasised on registration,” the bench had observed, noting that while the 1923 Mussalman Waqf Act didn’t have a registration provision, it required information about waqfs. From the 1954 Waqf Act onwards, registration became mandatory, with a 1976 report revealing why such registration was necessary.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioners, had argued that shifting the registration onus onto waqf custodians punishes the community for the state’s failure. He contended that the state was responsible for surveying and identifying such properties since 1954, stating: “It is the failure of the state to carry out their job from 1954 to 2025 and due to their failure, a community is being punished.”
Sibal stressed that the law undermines Muslims’ constitutional right under Article 26 to administer their own property.
The petitioners also challenged other provisions of the 2025 law, including a requirement that only a practising Muslim of at least five years may dedicate property as waqf—an eligibility criterion not imposed on other religious endowments.
Defending the law, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that permitting “any person” to dedicate waqf, as allowed by the 2013 amendment, was conceptually flawed. “How can waqf, which is an Islamic concept, be available for non-Islamic persons?” he asked, insisting the 2025 amendments were designed to enhance transparency and curb misuse.
Another contentious issue was the prohibition on creating waqf on land belonging to scheduled tribes. Mehta said the restriction was intended to protect vulnerable communities and their cultural identity, citing the joint parliamentary committee report that recommended the safeguard.
The bench, however, expressed scepticism, remarking: “What is the nexus of not allowing waqf on tribal land? Islam is Islam. Cultural traditions may differ, but religion is the same. If a waqf is sought to be created by fraud or deception, that will otherwise also go.”
During the May 22 hearing, senior lawyers Rajeev Dhavan and Abhishek Manu Singhvi highlighted how the Act allegedly discriminates against Muslims and risks extinguishing properties historically recognised as waqf through usage or oral tradition.
Dhavan argued that charity is among the five fundamental pillars of Islam, while Singhvi cautioned that provisions around registration and government disputes created a “vicious circle” that could block recognition of legitimate waqf.
States and other intervenors supporting the Centre highlighted instances of alleged misuse, citing cases where large tracts, even entire villages, were claimed as waqf property.
The petitions have challenged the Act on multiple constitutional grounds, alleging violation of fundamental rights and erosion of age-old waqf traditions. The Centre has defended the law as a necessary reform to ensure accountability, transparency and protection against encroachment.
