The Supreme Court will deliver its interim order on Monday on a batch of pleas challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which significantly increases government oversight over waqf properties. The hearing will focus on three key issues: whether properties already declared as waqf can be denotified under the amended law, the composition of state Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, and a provision that allows a collector to determine if a property claimed as waqf is actually government land.
On May 22, a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai had reserved the interim order after hearing arguments for three consecutive days from both sides – senior lawyers representing the petitioners and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defending the Centre.
One of the most debated changes in the new law is the removal of the "Waqf by user" provision, which previously allowed properties to be treated as waqf based on long-term religious or charitable use even without formal documentation. Petitioners have argued that the amended law is unconstitutional, undermines historical legal principles, and enables government control of waqf through non-judicial means. Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, described the amendment as a complete departure from past practice.
The Centre, however, has firmly defended the law, stressing that waqf is a "secular concept" and that the Act carries a presumption of constitutionality since it was passed by Parliament. The Ministry of Minority Affairs has also filed an affidavit opposing any blanket stay, asserting that the law reflects a legitimate legislative mandate.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which came into force on April 8 after receiving presidential assent, was cleared in Parliament with 288 votes in favour and 232 against in the Lok Sabha, and 128 in favour and 95 against in the Rajya Sabha. The legislation has triggered widespread protests, particularly in West Bengal, highlighting the sensitivity of the issue.
The Supreme Court’s interim ruling will determine the immediate scope of the law’s implementation while the constitutional challenge continues.
