The Supreme Court of India has deffered the hearing regarding the pleas challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The matter will now be heard on May 15, after upcoming CJI BR Gavai assumes office.
The matter will now be heard on May 15, after upcoming CJI BR Gavai assumes office.
The Supreme Court of India has deffered the hearing regarding the pleas challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The matter will now be heard on May 15, after upcoming CJI BR Gavai assumes office.
The hearing was set for Monday- May 5, after various petitions were filed challenging the passing of the Waqf Amendment Bill, deeming the law as unconstitutional and “anti-Muslim.”
The hearing began at 2 PM, following which Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna stated that the matter will now be placed before a bench led by Justice Gavai, the upcoming CJI.
“There are certain aspects you dealt, but that requires clarification. I don't have to reserve any judgment or order at interim stage. This matter will have to be heard on reasonably early date and this will not be before me,” CJI Khanna was quoted as saying by LiveLaw.
The first hearing for the Waqf Law was held on April 16, 2025 by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna with Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan. During this, the top court heard 10 petitions filed to challenge the 2025 amendment act.
Following this, the second hearing took place on April 17, 2025, in which the Supreme Court called on the Centre to file its response on two assurances -
The Union would denotify no waqfs, including waqf by user
No new members would be appointed to the Waqf Council or the Waqf Board before the SC라이브 바카라 next hearing.
On April 26, 2025, the Centre called on the top court to dismiss the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.
The Centre citied an addition of over 20 lakh hectares in waqf land, adding that cannot be a “blanket stay” on the law as there was a “presumption of its constitutionality”.
“While this court would examine these challenges when the cases are heard, a blanket stay (or a partial stay) without being aware of the adverse consequences of such an order in a generality of cases (even on members of the Muslim community itself) were the petitions to be unsuccessful would, it is submitted, be uncalled for, especially in the context of the presumption of validity of such laws,” the counsel for the Centre was quoted as saying.