As the Supreme Court hints it might stay certain provisions of the new law, the government tries to argue in its favor. Violence in certain parts of the country makes the situation worrisome
Our Bureau
New Delhi/Kolkata/Hyderabad
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill was passed by Parliament after heated debates in both Houses, and President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Act on April 5. Following it, several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Act, arguing that it is discriminatory towards the Muslim community and violates their fundamental rights.
This week the Supreme Court had indicated that it might stay certain key provisions of the Act, such as the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards, the powers of Collectors to decide disputes over Waqf properties, and provisions related to de-notifying properties declared as Waqf.
During the proceedings, CJI Khanna had questioned how properties declared as Waqf long ago could be suddenly reclassified, highlighting concerns about the government attempting to “rewrite history” through amendments to the law. “The government cannot rewrite history through these changes brought in by the amendments to the Waqf law,” said the CJI, referring to the scope under the new Act to de-notify properties declared as Waqf hundreds of years ago.
The bench had also raised concerns about the potential impact of the new Act on properties not registered or documented, such as Waqf-by-user properties, which account for a significant number of Waqf properties in India.
As the controversy continues, the Centre on Thursday assured the Supreme Court that key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards and provisions on de-notifying Waqf properties, will not be given effect to for some time.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan recorded the assurance given by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to the apex court that, until the next date of hearing, Waqf properties, including ‘Waqf by user’, which are declared by notification or registered, will not be de-notified.
Furthermore, the Solicitor General assured the court that no appointments will be made to the Waqf Council or Waqf boards. The Centre also sought additional time to file a response to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The bench granted a week’s time for the Centre to submit a response, and petitioners will be allowed to file their rejoinder within five days thereafter.
The matter has been posted for hearing in the week commencing May 5. “The hearing on the next date will only be for directions and interim orders, if any,” the bench added.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Mehta urged the bench not to stay the provisions of the Act, saying that the law was enacted after considering many representations and suggestions.
“Government is answerable to the people. The government received lakhs of representations. Villages are taken as Waqf, and many lands are claimed as Waqf. It is a considered piece of legislation,” Mehta said.
He added that staying the Act would be a “harsh step” and requested a week to file a preliminary reply along with relevant documents before the court. “This is not a matter that can be considered lightly,” he said.
In response, Chief Justice Khanna noted that the bench had already identified some positive aspects of the law but expressed concern over changing the status quo drastically, which could affect the rights of the parties involved.
The bench also segregated cases filed by Hindu parties challenging earlier Waqf laws of 1995 and 2013 and changed the cause title of the case to “In Re: Waqf Amendment Act.”
Former Law Minister Ashwani Kumar reacted to the Supreme Court’s interim order regarding the Waqf (Amendment) Act, calling it a “normal procedure” adopted by the court while hearing important matters.
Kumar said, “This is a normal procedure that the court, hearing an important matter, adopts. This only shows that the Supreme Court, at a later date, after seven days or after the filing of the pleadings is complete, will hear the matter because of the important questions of constitutional law that have been raised. In the meantime, in order that the petition does not become infructuous, the Court, acting on the assurance of the Solicitor General of India, has said that till the next date of hearing, or seven days, you will not make any changes in the composition of the Waqf Council or Waqf Board, you will not denotify the Waqf land by user and you will not also denotify the registered Waqf plan, which was, these are the three main issues that were challenged”.
He further added that the Supreme Court’s observations are a normal features of the Court’s process and noted that the order was made with the consent of the Solicitor General.
Meanwhile, Congress General Secretary KC Venugopal on Thursday said that the Supreme Court’s preliminary observations on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, validate the stand taken by the INDI alliance and the Congress Party. Referring to the ongoing legal proceedings and remarks made by the top court, Venugopal said, “The stand taken by the INDI alliance and especially Congress Party has been totally justified by the preliminary observation of the Supreme Court.”
He added that the concerns raised by opposition parties during the debate on the Waqf Bill were related to violations of the Constitution. “The speakers of INDI alliance during the debate on the Waqf Bill clearly emphasized the violation of Article 26. Through this bill, the government doesn’t listen to that voice,” he said.
Venugopal noted that although the Supreme Court’s remarks are not a final ruling, they support the opposition’s concerns. “Now, Honorable Supreme Court, through their preliminary observation, it may not be a final judgment but through the preliminary observation clearly stated that the concern raised by the parliamentarians of IND alliance was relevant. In that way, this is a success for IND alliance.”
But Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini on Friday criticized the previous Congress-led UPA government for introducing the original Waqf bill in haste for ‘vote bank politics’ during 2013-2014 and claimed that it lacked provisions that truly served the interests of Muslims.
Saini alleged that the Congress brought the bill for vote bank politics, accused the party of engaging in “shoddy politics,” and did not acknowledge the improvements in the amended legislation.
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s recent observations on the Waqf Amendment Act, Haryana Chief Minister Saini defended the legislation, stating that the amended Act is designed to benefit the entire Muslim community.
In a related development, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Thursday said that the Waqf (Amendment) Act is an internal matter of India and stressed that the amendments aim to make the law more progressive and inclusive, focusing on benefiting the intended beneficiaries.
Addressing the weekly press briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, “All the elements of the Waqf bill are an internal matter of India. And you know that the Waqf Amendment bill proposes several inclusive policies to make the Amendment bill more inclusive, more progressive, and so that there are greater benefits to the intended beneficiaries.”
In the middle of all this, violence continues in the state of West Bengal.
Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma on Thursday confirmed that the situation in Bhangar, where violence broke out earlier this week over protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, is now under control, with 19 individuals arrested in connection with the unrest.
He added that many senior police officials had visited the area today to review the situation.
Congress MP Pramod Tiwari on Friday slammed the center and West Bengal government for the Murshidabad violence. His criticism came in the wake of violence following protests over the Waqf (amendment) Act in the State. Expressing pain, Tiwari accused both the center and the state of failing to maintain law and order in Murshidabad, resulting in an exodus of families. Tiwari said, “I am in pain with what happened in Murshidabad. The victims should get justice. The exodus should stop.”
Pointed out the involvement of cross-border Bangladesh infiltrators; he said,” If something has been conspired in Bangladesh, then both the central and state governments are responsible.”
Criticizing the government in power, Tiwari said that both the central and state governments had failed to stop a foreign conspiracy and protect the borders.
Amid such a tense situation in West Bengal and other parts of the country, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court hearing on May 5, the day that can decide the future of this bill.
