SC withholds order for interim stay on parts of Waqf Act after Centre, states seek time

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday expressed its intention to issue an interim order granting a stay on some parts of the amended Waqf law, but put it on hold at the last minute after the Central government and the states requested more time to furnish their arguments on the three points raised by the court. 
The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan, was hearing a bunch of over 70 petitions challenging the Waqf Act.

The bench earlier considered referring the pleas to one high court but later heard a battery of senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan and solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre.

“Normally we don’t pass such interim orders, but this is an exception,” said Justice Khanna.
At this point, the centre and the states objected against an interim order and sought more time.
The bench will hear the matter again at 2 pm on Thursday (April 17).

CJI Khanna also raised concerns over the way some properties have been classified as Waqf.
“We have been told the Delhi high court building is on Waqf land, Oberoi Hotel is on Waqf land… We are not saying all Waqf-by-user properties are wrongly registered, but there are some genuine areas of concern too,” he observed.

During the hearing, the judges raised three points, indicating their intention to pass an interim order and putting some provisions of the amended law on hold.

The court’s three concerns were: the validity of ‘Waqf by user’ properties declared earlier by court decrees which now may become void; having non-Muslims as majority members in Waqf Council; and pending enquiry by the collector on disputed Waqf property, the declaration that the same will not be treated as Waqf property.

“The properties declared by courts as waqfs should not be de-notified as waqfs, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed, while the court is hearing the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025,” the bench said.
The top court went on, “All Members of the Waqf boards and central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.”

The apex court said when a public trust was declared to be a waqf 100 or 200 years ago, it couldn’t suddenly be taken over by the waqf board and declared otherwise.
“You cannot rewrite the past,” the bench said.

Sibal mentioned ‘Waqf by user’—a provision under which a property is treated as Waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes, even without formal documentation. The new law adds an exemption: this won’t apply to properties that are in dispute or are government land.

Sibal said that ‘Waqf by user’ is an integral part of Islam. “The problem is, if a waqf was created 3,000 years ago, they will ask for the deed,” he said.
The CJI asked SG Mehta to focus on the ‘Waqf by user’ provisions in the new law. “Are you saying that if a ‘Waqf by user’ was established by a (court) judgment or otherwise, today it stands void?” 
He mentioned that many mosques part of Waqf were built in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries and it is impossible to present documents for them.

The court then asked, “How will you register such Waqfs by user? What documents will they have? It will lead to undoing something. Yes, there is some misuse. But there are genuine ones also. I have gone through privy council judgments also. Waqf by user is recognised. If you undo it then it will be a problem. Legislature cannot declare a judgment, order or decree as void,” the bench said.

The court then flagged the provision to include non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council and asked the government if it would allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards.

The CJI asked: “Mr Mehta, are you saying you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly”.

The Chief Justice, however, noted that the positive points in the law must be highlighted. 

The Centre recently notified the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which got the assent of President Droupadi Murmu on April 5 after its passage in both houses of Parliament.
Among those who challenged the law are leaders of the opposition parties including the Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, DMK, CPI and BJP ally Janata Dal United.
Religious organisations and NGOs like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board have also filed their objections. 

The Centre, on April 8, filed a caveat in the Supreme Court and sought a hearing before any order was passed in the matter. A caveat is filed by a party to ensure that no orders are passed without hearing it.

After the conclusion of hearing, CJI Khanna expressed concern over the violence that has broken out in West Bengal against the amendments to Waqf Act.
“One thing is very disturbing is the violence that is taking place. If the matter is pending here it should not happen,” the CJI said.