By News Desk 
The Supreme Court is currently hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025. Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, during today’s hearing, told the petitioners challenging the amendment that laws passed by Parliament inherently carry a presumption of constitutionality, and until a concrete case arises, the court cannot interfere in such matters.
Court’s Focus on Three Key Issues
The bench comprising CJI Gavai and Justice AG Masih is hearing multiple petitions against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, which became law last month. Before the hearing, the court had decided on three main issues to address: the use of waqf properties by non-Muslims, the appointment of non-Muslims to Waqf Councils and State Waqf Boards, and the identification of government land under Waqf. The central government assured the court that it would address these issues until the case is resolved.
Disagreement Over Extending the Scope of Issues
When the hearing began, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the government had filed its response on the three key issues. However, he pointed out that the written submissions from the petitioners now raised several other points. Mehta requested that the hearing be restricted to the three issues initially identified.
In response, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, objected to this request. Singhvi noted that former CJI (Sanjeev Khanna) had indicated that the court would examine the case in its entirety, including the question of interim relief. He argued that limiting the discussion to just three issues would not be feasible.
The Legal Debate on Waqf by User
During the hearing, Mehta reiterated that the bench had initially raised three issues for examination, and the government had responded accordingly. However, Sibal countered by stating that the petitioners intended to argue on all the issues raised. He further stated that unlike temples, mosques do not receive large donations, which makes the issue of waqf by user different. Sibal also pointed out that the previous law required waqf properties to be registered, and failure to do so meant the property was not considered waqf.
Registration of Waqf Properties and the Court’s Inquiry
CJI Gavai questioned whether the registration requirement for waqf by user existed, to which Sibal confirmed that it was not previously mandated. However, Sibal added that after 1954, amendments to the Waqf Act made the registration of waqf properties mandatory. The court then inquired whether waqf by user required registration post-1954, to which Sibal affirmed.
Sibal elaborated on the practice of waqf by user, explaining that while temples receive donations, mosques do not follow the same model. He argued that waqf properties were often private donations and claimed that the current law was designed to allow the government to take control of waqf properties in the event of a dispute.
Concerns About the Impact on Religious Freedom
The CJI asked if this would interfere with the practice of religion, and Sibal argued that the new law violated Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of religion. He further stated that the amendment effectively transferred waqf properties under government control, which could be viewed as an acquisition and an infringement on religious rights.
Sibal raised concerns about the difficulty in proving one’s Muslim identity to the government, claiming that individuals might be required to wait up to five years to do so. He emphasized that this violated Articles 14, 25, and 26, ensuring equality, freedom of religion, and the right to manage religious affairs.
The Impact of the New Waqf Law
Sibal also highlighted that the new law removed waqf by user provisions, which he argued should never have been removed, as they were considered sacred and permanent. He mentioned that the law was now ensuring that only those waqfs that are registered would remain valid, effectively excluding older waqf properties that were not registered.
During the discussion, CJI Gavai drew an analogy, citing that even a temple under the protection of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) allows people to visit and pray there. Sibal responded, mentioning that the new law states that properties under ASI protection cannot be considered waqf, and questioned how people would be able to provide the required information about waqf properties that were established centuries ago. If the details are not provided, he pointed out that mutawallis (administrators) would face imprisonment for up to six months.
Conclusion
After hearing Sibal’s arguments, the bench observed that the matter raised several complex constitutional and legal issues concerning the new law’s potential impact on religious rights, the management of waqf properties, and the rights of individuals involved in waqf. The Supreme Court will continue to hear the case, and further developments are expected as the petitions unfold. The outcome of this case could significantly shape the future of waqf law and religious freedoms in India.