CENTRE CONCEDES ON WAQF AMENDMENTS AFTER SC HINT: NO NON-MUSLIM APPOINTMENTS, STATUS QUO MAINTAINED:

In response to petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that no non-Muslims will be appointed to Central or State Waqf bodies under the amended provisions until further orders. He also assured that no waqf—declared by notification, registration, or by user—will be de-notified or have its status altered until the next hearing. The Court recorded these assurances in its order.

The Supreme Court, led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, heard petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and posted the matter for further hearing on May 5 at 2 PM. The Court renamed the case as In Re: Waqf Amendment Act and designated five writ petitions as lead cases, treating the rest as intervention applications.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed any interim stay, stating that halting a law based on tentative readings is an extraordinary step and that the amendments were based on extensive public input, particularly over concerns of private properties being declared waqf.

CJI Khanna acknowledged both positive aspects and constitutional concerns, stating that the Court aimed to preserve the status quo to avoid harming parties' rights. The bench declined to stay the law outright but secured an assurance from the Centre that no non-Muslims would be appointed to Waqf bodies and no waqf properties—whether by deed, user, or registration—would be de-notified until the next hearing. The SG agreed and added that if any State made such appointments, they could be deemed void.

The Supreme Court earlier raised critical concerns about the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the status of longstanding waqf-by-user properties, the need for centuries-old religious sites to re-register, the potential for government enquiries to delay or override waqf status, the validity of Section 2A in light of prior court rulings, and whether the amended law ensures a Muslim-majority composition in Waqf bodies. Although the Court proposed an interim order to address these issues, it was deferred after the Union requested more time.

On Day 1 of the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, argued that key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 are unconstitutional—particularly the removal of the ‘waqf by user’ concept and the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf bodies. He stressed that many historic waqfs, like Delhi’s Jama Masjid, were established without formal deeds and that requiring such documentation centuries later is impractical.

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that registered waqf-by-user properties would remain valid. However, CJI Khanna questioned whether properties declared waqf by courts or used as such for centuries could now be invalidated, especially under the new provision that suspends waqf status during government enquiries.

Sibal also objected to allowing non-Muslims in Waqf bodies, calling it an arbitrary intrusion into religious administration. CJI Khanna pressed the SG on whether minorities would similarly be allowed on Hindu religious boards, to which SG Mehta replied that, apart from ex-officio members, only two non-Muslim members would be appointed and that the current board composition would continue until their terms end.