World
India
The Supreme Court on Wednesday suggested that it may temporarily suspend some key provisions of the controversial Waqf Act, 2025, including the removal of waqf-by-user, inclusion of non-Muslim members in waqf boards, and the power given to district Collectors to decide the status of waqf properties.
“We do not stay a legislation normally at this stage of the challenge unless in exceptional circumstances. This appears to be an exception. Our concern is that if waqf-by-user is de-notified, there could be huge consequences,” Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna said during the hearing. The bench also included Justices P V Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan.
What is Waqf-by-User and Why It’s Controversial
The 2025 law removes the long-standing concept of waqf-by-user, which allowed land to be recognized as waqf if it had been used for religious or charitable purposes by the Muslim community over time—even if it was never formally registered.
Justice Khanna noted that there could be a mix of genuine and misused cases. “As far as waqf-by-user is concerned, it will be very difficult to register. So, there is ambiguity there. You may argue that waqf-by-user is also being misused. You have a point there… You may have a point that’s being misused also, but at the same time, there is genuine waqf-by-user also. You can’t say that there is no genuine waqf-by-user either,” he said.
Government Defends the New Law
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stood firm on the government’s position, stating that all waqf properties—including waqf-by-user—must be registered to be considered valid.
“From 1923 when the first Waqf Act came into force, registration of waqf is mandatory, statutorily, mandatorily required. You cannot have an unregistered waqf. Even waqf-by-user cannot be unregistered, which was followed by the Waqf Act of 1954. Under 1954 Act also, it is mandatory to have your waqf-by-user or any other waqf registered. That was followed by the Waqf Act of 1995. The present Act, where also the registration of waqf is… only compulsory.…,” Mehta explained.
However, the judges appeared concerned that this approach could potentially wipe out the legal status of thousands of waqf properties that have been functioning for generations.
Collector’s Powers Under Scrutiny
Another controversial part of the new law allows the district Collector to label a property as government land, which would automatically remove its waqf status until a court decides otherwise.
The Supreme Court hinted that while an inquiry by the Collector could be allowed, the impact of that decision should be put on hold. Justice Khanna pointed out, “What do you mean by the term ‘is in dispute’? It doesn’t say it’s before the court or is otherwise in dispute.”
He also raised doubts about how centuries-old religious sites could possibly provide paperwork to prove ownership. “Now the fact of the matter is, before the Britishers came, we did not have any registration of property… Many of the masjids may have been constructed in 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th centuries. To require them to produce a registered sale deed will be impossible.”
Petitioners Demand Immediate Relief
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, highlighted how serious the impact could be. “Of about 8 lakh existing waqfs, roughly 4 lakh are perhaps by user and that the newly introduced provision, makes them non-existent by one stroke of the pen.”
The petitioners also cited the Ayodhya verdict, where the Supreme Court had acknowledged the long-standing recognition of waqf-by-user. Singhvi said, “Some of these pernicious provisions, they’ve come into effect immediately. We are seeking a stay.”
Kapil Sibal, another senior advocate representing the petitioners, was critical of the amendments, calling them “a parliamentary usurpation of the faith of 200 million citizens of this country.”
Court Yet to Pass Interim Order
The bench was preparing to deliver an interim order when Solicitor General Mehta requested more time to present his arguments. The court agreed and scheduled the next hearing for April 17 at 3 p.m.
The judges also indicated they may soon decide whether the case will continue in the Supreme Court or be transferred to a High Court for further consideration.
After the main hearing, Chief Justice Khanna also briefly commented on the recent violence in West Bengal, calling the situation “disturbing.” SG Mehta added that there was a growing issue where people try to “pressurise the system.”
