Waqf Act SC hearing: No interim order as of now, court to reconvene tomorrow at 2 PM

BJP leader Mohsin Raza said that the opposition doesn't believe in justice.

“Waqf Amendment Act 2025 was brought for the welfare of the poor and to give them justice. The opposition, especially Congress and the Samajwadi Party, are the ones who approached the Supreme Court at 3 AM to save a terrorist when he was about to be hanged. They don't believe in justice... They are not fighting for anyone's benefit, but their own... The 2013 Amendment is now over... Opposition is being exposed, so they have filed a plea in the Supreme Court to bake their political bread... Had they believed in justice, they wouldn't have manipulated Shah Bano's case, nor approached the court against Triple Talaq, abrogation of 370, or CAA-NRC,” Raza told ANI

Congress leader Udit Raj has expressed hope that the inclusion of non-muslims in the council would be eliminated

"Non-Muslims should also be a petitioner in this case, and as a citizen, I have filed my petition. The indication from the preliminary hearing is that the inclusion of a non-Muslim person ( in Waqf Council) will be eliminated," Raj said after the hearing

Amanatullah Khan wondered why the DM is being granted more powers than the Waqf board.

“Waqf by user has been going on for many years now. We hope we will get relief on this. I have been the chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board... In Delhi, Waqf has 1977 properties, and there is a gazette notification for all of them... We dont understand why the DM is being given more powers than the Chairman and the board,” the AAP MLA said.

1. Whichever properties were declared by court to be waqf will not be denotified or be treated as non waqf.. whether it's waqf by user or not.
2. Collector can continue with proceedings .. but the provision will not be given effect to.
3. Regarding board and council.. ex officio members can be appointed. But the other members have to Muslims.

Supreme Court takes note of the violence after the passage of the Waqf Act.

“One thing is very disturbing, the violence. The issue is before the Court, and we will decide,” the CJI said.

No interim order passed, Court to hear tomorrow at 2 pm after request from Respondents.

The Supreme Court said that history of 100 years back cannot be rewritten

"Where public trust has been declared as waqf, say 100 or 200 years back, you turn about and say it is taken by the waqf board," CJI Sanjiv Khanna said to Tushar Mehta.

Mehta argued that if today, he were a Muslim, he wouldn't have to make waqf. He can make trust.

“You cannot rewrite the past of 100 years back!” CJI said.

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre whether it is willing to allow Muslims to be part of Hindu religious trusts.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the bench argue about the composition of the board.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: "Going by their (petitioners) logic, then your lordships can't also hear this matter.

CJI : When we are sitting here to adjudicate, we lose our religion. We are secular. We are talking about a Board which is managing religious affairs

“If you are going to denotify waqf-by-user properties, it will be an issue,” CJI told Solicitor General.

During the hearing, the Centre argued that the process of judicial review has not been taken away by the Waqf Act.

“The tribunal is a judicial body, it has a judge and one person with Muslim law knowledge. Judicial has not been taken away,” the court was told.

Centre says in a case of dispute, position of a property as Waqf will be suspended but usage can continue.

“Position as waqf remains suspended, but nobody says the usage will stop. These are revenue proceedings, and if somebody wants to have adverse possession, they can seek a remedy,” Tushar Mehta told the court.

The Centre says disputes would be settled by the collector.

“If any question arises if the property is government property, the Collector will determine. Why did this provision come? No one can dispute that government property cannot be anything but Gov property,” Tushar Mehta said.

CJI asked the centre to clarify what ‘dispute’ would mean according to the Act.

“It says, it's dispute- what do you mean by that term? Before Court? Before the Britishers, we didn't have Registration Act. Now, many masjids are constructed in 13, 14 15 centuries. You require them to produce a sale deed is impossible,” he said

Centre defended the law during the Supreme Court hearing, saying that there was a constitution of a joint parliamentary committee and an elaborate exercise was undertaken.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna said that one high court may be asked to deal with pleas.

Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed the notion of the case being sent to the high court.

"This is not the case where Mylords should send us to the high court, LiveLaw quoted Singhvi as telling the apex court.

CJI Sanjiv Khanna said that there is ‘genuine concern’ over the concept of Waqf by user.

“We are told Delhi HC is built on waqf land..we are not saying all waqf by user is wrong, but there is genuine [concern],” CJI said.

Kapil Sibal says that the provision of limitation will legitimise encroachers of Waqf properties as they can now claim adverse possession.

Kapil Sibal argued that section 14, dealing with the composition of the board, was a ‘takeover through nominations’ as it has non-muslim members.

“It's a complete takeover through nomination; see 1995 Act- S.9, all Muslims, Board provision is S. 14- all Muslims,” Sibal said, according to a LiveLaw report.

Kapil Sibal reads the sections of the act being challenged: “Who is the state to tell us how inheritance will be in my religion?”

CJI: “But in Hindus it does happen.. so parliament has enacted a law for Muslims.. may be not like of the Hindus.. article 26 will not bar enactment of law in this case.. article 26 is universal and it is secular in the fashion that it applies to all”.

Sibal: “Inheritance in Islam is after death, and they are intervening before that.”

CJI Sanjiv Khanna said that the nature of Article 26 is secular, and it applies to all.

When asked about the specific point of challenge, Kapil Sibal pointed out the provision.

“I am challenging 3(r), provision to S.3 [providing existing waqf by user will remain as waqf except in dispute or government property],” Sibal said.

The Supreme Court has asked the parties to address 2 points, including whether the matter should be sent to the high court.

Advocate Kapil Sibal, in his submission to the court, said the Waqf law interferes with faith, LiveLaw reported.

"My submission upfront, what is sought through Parliamentary legislation is to interfere with the essential and integral part of faith," Sibal said, referring to Articles 25 and 26.