Waqf Amendment Act SC Hearing: No Interim Order As Of Now, Court To Reconvene Tomorrow At 2 PM

AIMPLB spokesperson Dr Syed Qasim Rasool, speaking to PTI said: "Two three important things that came, first was about Waqf by user, the SC wanted to know, earlier it used to be done verbally, it was said that any property, if Masjid, it should be used as Masjid, and it is being used for years, it would be considered as a Waqf by user, irrespective of registry, paper

Now the govt put a rider, in case of dispute, it will not be Waqf by user, now they will have to go for registration. Those who do not have the papers, how they will be doing registry. The court was trying to know, if those properties would be saved. Secondly, the issue of composition, that two non-Muslims would be there, the court asked whether it would be more than two, they denied... Secondly the government's counsel said that there are provisions for women, Pasmanda, the court said there is nothing new in it, it was there."

He also said: "With regards to tribunal, it was said in law that in govt disputes, tribunal won't be deciding, the court asked if there would be a designated officer appointment by the govt, then in whose favour he will decide, they could not answer properly."

The Supreme Court of India is set to hear the various pleas challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 on Wednesday. This urgent hearing comes after several opposition parties moved the top court, citing that the law passed by the ruling NDA alliance is "Anti-Muslim" and "unconstitutional."

The case has been listed before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.

Some of the petitioners whose pleas have been listed for Supreme Court hearing include, AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MP Md Jawed, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, Indian Union Muslim League, YSRC Party, Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema, Delhi MLA Amanatullah Khan, SP MP Zia Ur Rehman, Imam of Jama Masjid Bengaluru, Communist Party of India, TVK President & Tamil actor Vijay, Association for Protection of Civil Rights.

Samajwadi Party MP Zia ur Rahman Barq spoke to PTI ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and said, "The Supreme Court will be hearing the petitions today... I and our party, Akhilesh Yadav had opposed the (Waqf) bill when it was brought in Parliament. This bill is meant to divide our society and obstruct the development of our nation. We protested against the bill inside Parliament and at Jantar Mantar too. I have also filed a writ in Supreme Court which will be heard today, and we are hoping for justice."

Daya Singh who is a practising Sikh and the President of Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Gurgaon has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.

According to LiveLaw, he contends that the amendments infringe upon his fundamental right to make charitable endowments across religious lines, a practice rooted in Sikh values.

Petitioner Daya Singh told PTI, "The Waqf Act that was passed, it violates the constitutional provisions of Articles 14, 26, 25, 29, it also challenges Article 300. If there is a decision being made regarding Waqf Board, we have the apprehension that same can happen to Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhan Committee. If the constitution permits the people of one religion to manage their own, there is no need to bring in people from other religion... We think that it is wrong, as we belong to a minority community, that's why we have filed the petition in SC."

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi to appear for actor Vijay in his petition challenging the Waqf Act.

- LiveLaw

The States of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, Assam, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh have filed intervention applications supporting the Act with the Supreme Court.

The Central Government has also filed a caveat.

Petitioner Jaleed Ahmad spoke about the matter, "The Waqf (Amendment) that has come, a new provision of 'Waqf By User' is an attempt to dilute Places of Worship Act, 1991. Secondly, in new amendment, a condition was brought that mentioned that all the Waqf would be have to produce the documental evidence in every six months on the portal. Earlier the Waqf used to be verbal, there are no documents, but they are Waqf. The act was forced unconstitutionally on the community. Court is the only place where we can expect the justice, we hope that the SC would do justice."

As per reports, the petitions before the Supreme Court have challenged the law and stated that the provisions of the 2025 bill have imposed "arbitrary restrictions on Waqf properties and their management, thereby undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community”.

"The amendments undermine property rights protected under Article 300A. By expanding state control over Waqf assets, limiting the ability of individuals to dedicate property for religious purposes, and subjecting Waqf properties to heightened scrutiny, the Act goes against the Supreme Court라이브 바카라 judgment that transferring control of religious property to secular authorities is an infringement of religious and property rights,” the petition added further as per LiveLaw.

Read More

Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha representing Hindu Sena said ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 said, "We have submitted an intervention, and Hindu Sena라이브 바카라 chairman, Vishnu Gupta, has expressed our full support for the amendment to the Waqf Act. The revisions are entirely correct, fair, and in line with the Constitution. Key changes, including those made to Section 3 and the removal of Section 40, are crucial, and we strongly back them. These amendments were absolutely necessary."

RJD MP and Petitioner Manoj Kumar Jha said “I believe the hon’ble Supreme Court will examine every aspect of this matter with seriousness. Our party is also closely watching this issue, whether it라이브 바카라 Article 25 or 26, the interpretation made by the government clearly reflects its intent, and I am confident the hon’ble court will recognise that intent while delivering its judgment.”

West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee speaking during a meeting with Muslim religious leaders to discuss Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 stated, "BJP is bringing goons from outside the state... it is their plan. You people jointly foiled their plan on Ramnavami. You need to be alert. I would also like to say that there are traitors in every society... If BJP tries to incite in the name of Hindu-Muslim then you all have to play a role... Imam sahab should play a role. We want peace. Till the time we are here, we won't let anyone to divide Hindu-Muslim."

Read Full Story Here

Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna asked the petitioners challenging the Waqf Act to first tell the court whether the case should be heard by the Supreme Court or it should be referred to the high courts.

In his opening arguments, said that the challenge involves an issue that is essential to a faith. He cited Article 26 of the Constitution that deals with freedom of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.

Kapil Sibal said in the Supreme Court, "Who is the State to tell us how inheritance will be in my religion?"

While countering Sibal, CJI Khanna said, "But in Hinduism, 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."

Continuing his opening arguments, Kapil Sibal said, "Please see section 3R of the Unified Waqf Management Act. Please see the definition of waqf. Waqf means the permanent dedication by any person showing or demonstrating…that he is practicing Islam for last 5 years. That라이브 바카라 why if I want to create a waqf I have to show I am practicing Islam from the last 5 years and how should the state decide whether and how I am a Muslim or not.. what is the contrivance here."

While arguing, Kapil Sibal says in the Supreme Court, "Central Waqf Council, under 1995, all nominees were Muslim. I have a chart of all Hindu or Sikh endowments; the nominees are Hindus or Sikhs – it's a direct violation."

"Don't mix; properties can be secular. Only the administration of property can fall for it; don't repeatedly say essential religious practice," said J. Vishwanathan whilereplying.

Kapil Sibal in the Supreme Court asks, how can the state decide whether I am a Muslim or not and hence, eligible to create a waqf?.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, '"Four out of eight lakh Waqf properties are user-generated, and can be affected by one stroke of the pen, as quoted by Live Law.

Countering, the CJI said, 'We don't want to interrupt. We've been told that the Delhi High Court is built on Waqf land... We're not saying all user-generated Waqf properties are wrong, but there's a genuine issue here," as quoted by Live Law.

Singhvi referenced the 118 Ayodhya judgment, saying it's a very old concept. 'Have you removed the basis? he asked. 2(r) is deleted, but can you remove the basis of the judgment?

See, practically, if 4 out of 8 lakh properties are affected; if I say Parliament is Waqf property, your lordship wouldn't accept it, but the concept itself isn't bad.

CJI Sanjeev Khanna said in the Supreme Court, "When we were in Delhi High Court, we were told that the High Court itself is built on Waqf property," as quoted by Indian Express

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, says there was a joint parliamentary committee, it held 38 sittings. It visited many areas cities, held consultations and examined lakhs of suggestions. Then it goes to both Houses and then law was passed.

During a meeting with Muslim clerics, West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee said, "If the Waqf Act has to be changed, why did you not amend the Constitution? This Act should be passed by a two-thirds majority. It cannot be passed by just a majority. When the Constitution is amended, it is done by a two-thirds majority, not just a majority, but you played a trick. Instead of amending the Constitution, you brought a bill."

Waqf Act will have all India ramifications, pleas should not be referred to high court, says senior counsel Abhishek Singhvi, Indian Express reported.

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi said, Waqf by user is an established practice of Islam; it cannot be taken away.

Addressing a press conference here, Shiv Sena spokesperson and the party's Lok Sabha member from Thane Naresh Mhaske strongly condemned the violence in West Bengal.

"Despite the violence, the TMC government in West Bengal has remained a mere spectator. All the violence is taking place under the nose of the state government and the local police. Therefore, the Mamata Banerjee-led dispensation should be dismissed and President's rule should be imposed in the state," he said.

The apex court will continue hear the pleas related to Waqf (Amendment) Act tomorrow.

The top court said, "No Interim order as of now, Court To Reconvene Tomorrow At 2 PM."

On SC hearing on Waqf Amendment Act, Advocate AP Singh says, "Hearing of all the plea challenging the Waqf Amendment Act has been done by the SC...Both parties were heard, and the Supreme Court is to continue its hearing tomorrow on a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025..."

On the SC hearing petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, Advocate AP Singh says, "I want to thank the court where I have been there for the past 27 years...They conducted the hearing on this issue as soon as possible... The President of the country has also approved this bill...What Mamata Banerjee has said is wrong..."

On the SC hearing petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, AAP leader Amanatullah Khan says, "... 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..."

Expressing a hope, Congress leader Udit Raj said, "Non-Muslims should also be petitioners 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 the Waqf Council) will be eliminated."

"The court indicated that it might stay the inclusion of a non-Muslim in the Waqf Council and elimination of 'Waqf by user'. There is no interim order stay yet," says Advocate Shahid Ali representing Congress leader Udit Raj.

The top court will continue hearing the pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act tomorrow and CJI Sanjeev Khanna condemned violence that occurred after the passing of the Bill saying its very disturbing.

On SC hearing in Waqf (Amendment) Act case, petitioner's counsel, advocate Md Sulaiman said to PTI, "Today, the Supreme Court heard a bunch of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. After an elaborate hearing from both the sides, judges were actually passing an interim order in the form of three points.

First one was that 'Waqf by user' should not be disturbed in a manner that has been declared... Second relief which was being given to the petitioners was that if there is a dispute regarding a property or part of a property, it is pending before the Collector."

He further added: "It will not be deemed to be a non-Waqf property... These orders were being passed then the Solicitor General said to allow them to make elaborate arguments on this and adjourn the matter. On this request, the matter has been adjourned for tomorrow for 2 pm."