Waqf case LIVE | Waqf is just charity, not essential to Islam: Centre tells SC
Centre defends Waqf Act, 2025 in SC, saying waqf by its very nature is a “secular concept”, can't be stayed given “presumption of constitutionality” in its favour
The Centre on Wednesday (May 21) told the Supreme Court that the concept of waqf was not an essential part of Islam and only referred to charity, which is also practised by other religions.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made the point while responding to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on behalf of the Centre before a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Centre’s argument
Mehta argued that non-Muslims should be permitted to be part of waqf boards as the essential role of the latter is to discharge “secular functions”.
“Waqf is an Islamic concept. But it is not an essential part of Islam…Waqf is nothing but just charity in Islam. Judgements show that charity is part of every religion and can happen for Christianity also. Hindus also have a system of daan. Sikhs also have it,” Mehta said.
‘Govt empowered to reclaim waqf properties’
During Wednesday’s hearing, the Centre also told the top court that nobody can claim right over government land, and it is legally empowered to reclaim properties that are declared waqf by using the waqf user principle.
Waqf by user refers to a concept where a property is recognised as waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes, even without formal documentation.
“There is a Supreme Court judgment which says the government can save the property if it belongs to the government and has been declared as waqf,” Mehta said.
What SC told petitioners
On Tuesday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai told the petitioners challenging the Waqf legislation that there is a presumption regarding the constitutionality of the law passed by Parliament and that courts cannot interfere unless a glaring case is made for interim relief.
CJI Gavai, along with Justice Augustine George Masih, is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the contentious legislation.
Earlier, the Centre urged the top court to confine the hearing on pleas challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act for passing interim orders to three issues, including the power to denotify properties declared as “waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed”.
The bench was asked by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to confine the proceedings identified by the earlier bench.
“The court had earmarked three issues. We had filed our response to these three issues. However, the written submissions of the petitioners now exceed several other issues. I have filed my affidavit in response to these three issues. My request is to confine it to the three issues only,” the law officer.
The submission was opposed by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for those challenging the provisions of the 2025 law, that there cannot be any piecemeal hearing.
One of the issues is the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed.
The second issue raised by the petitioners relates to the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contend only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members.
The third issue relates to a provision that says a waqf property will not be treated as a waqf when the collector conducts an inquiry to ascertain if the property is government land.
The hearing is underway and Sibal commenced advancing submissions and is referring to the background of the case.
Also read
Live Updates
- 21 May 2025 12:53 PM IST
The government has the right to examine who owns the property: SG Mehta
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that 1923 and 1955 Act said Waqf can be created by Waqf. The 2025 amendment says only if a person practices Islam for 5 years, he can create Waqf on his own property and not on any other property to eradicate the menace of private or government property.
Dispute in the case of waqf by user would mean a private party may have filed a suit that it is my property which is declared as a Waqf. If there is a dispute between private party with regard to Waqf property, it would be governed by the adjudication of the competent court. We are dealing with Waqf by user.
Waqf by user by definition means the property belongs to someone else. The right to the property would have accquired by continuous usage. Therefore necessarily either private/government property is used for a long period of time.
If there is a building which may be a government property, Can the government not examine whether the property belongs to the government?
- 21 May 2025 12:42 PM IST
JPC took various inputs from different Muslim bodies: SG Mehta
Tushar Mehta said a JPC report was submitted to the Union govt where suggestions made were accepted/rejected with reasons. Then the Act was passed with unprecedented debate.
- 21 May 2025 12:35 PM IST
Few petitioners cannot claim to represent the entire Muslim community: SG Mehta
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Union government was addressing a longstanding issue that has persisted since 1923. Every stakeholder was heard. The Joint Parliamentary Committee held 36 sittings.
- 21 May 2025 12:22 PM IST
SG Mehta presents positives of Waqf Act
SG Mehta: [says he will refer to section by section which are under challenge] 1. 3(r)- 2013 amendment- interesting amendment came just before general elections- where any person can create waqfPositive thing we added- waqf alal aulad- the children initially did not include daughters, widows- we introduced for the first time. not under challenge, fortunately.If you have registered as waqf by user, it is safe. Its prospective. With 2 exceptions- 1. property is in dispute [private/gov]Kindly appreciate, we are dealing with waqf by user. First category of property is that I dedicated to Allah. Nobody has a right over the gov land, because the entire country would then be the owner of the land and the gov holds the property in trust.There is supreme court judgment which says gov can save the property if it belongs to gov and has been declared as waqf.2. Waqf by user- by long usage- necessarily a private or gov property is used for a long period. How to decide if its gov land or not? Suppose there is building which can be gov property, the question is can the gov not examine? i am holding in trust for crores of people
CJI: Their argument is officer above the collector, gov officer is deciding its own claim and giving finality to that
SG Mehta: not just misleading but false argument
- 20 May 2025 4:28 PM IST
Hearing to resume tomorrow: CJI
CJI BR Gavai says that the hearing will resume tomorrow (Wednesday)
- 20 May 2025 4:25 PM IST
Under amended act the waqf itself ceases to exist for non-registration: Senior Advocate CU Singh
Senior Advocate CU Singh argues that under the earlier Waqf laws there was a provision for a penalty, including a fine, on the Muttawali, for non-registration of waqfs. He says that now the fine has been hiked to Rs 25,000. But under the amended waqf act, the waqf itself ceases to exist.
- 20 May 2025 4:19 PM IST
Singhvi questions the claim of no waqf property being registered
Singhvi refers to the JPC report pointing out 5 out of 28 States were surveyed adding 9.3 percent area was surveyed and asks then how can one claim that there was no registered Waqf.
- 20 May 2025 4:01 PM IST
Centre treating increase in waqf property listing in portal as increase in numbers: Singhvi
Singhvi argues that although there is a perception of a huge increase in waqf property in the country, but it has to be kept in mind registering waqf through a portal commenced in 2013. He said that the Centre was treating the increase in the increasing in the portal's listing as increase in number of waqf properties.
- 20 May 2025 3:57 PM IST
Right to property higher than a statutory right: Singhvi
Referring to the Article 300A of the Constitution, dealing with right to property, Singhvi argues that being a “constitutional right”, it is “higher than a statutory right” although not a fundamental right.
