Waqf case: Centre says won’t denotify properties, Supreme Court grants it 7 days to reply to pleas

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday assured the Supreme Court that it will neither denotify waqf properties, including “waqf by user”, nor make any appointments to the central waqf council and boards till May 5.

The assurance of solicitor general Tushar Mehta came when he informed a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan that the waqf law was passed by Parliament with “due deliberations” and it should not be stayed without hearing the government.

The Centre also strongly opposed the apex court’s proposal to pass an interim order against the denotification of waqf properties, including ‘waqf by user’, aside from staying a provision allowing the inclusion of non-Muslims in the central waqf councils and boards.

“During the course of hearing, the solicitor general states that the respondent (Union of India) would like to put in a short response within seven days. He further states and assures that till the next date of hearing, no appointments will be made to the council and boards under sections 9 and 14 (of the Act),” the bench said.

The bench noted Mehta, appearing for the Centre, has also said that till the next date of hearing, waqf properties, including ‘waqf by user’ already registered or declared by way of notification, shall not be disturbed and denotified.

The bench then granted a week’s time to the Centre to file a preliminary response to the pleas challenging the validity of the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 and posted the matter on May 5.

“If your lordships will say something about ‘waqf by user’, what will be the fallout?” Mehta said.

He added, “We, as a government, and Parliament, are answerable to the people.”

The CJI said if the registration of any waqf property had taken place under the erstwhile 1995 Act, then those properties can’t be denotified till further hearing.

The apex court, while hearing the matter on Wednesday, proposed to stay certain key provisions of the Act, including the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts and inclusion of non-Muslims in central waqf council and boards.

On Thursday, Mehta asked whether the court might consider staying, directly or indirectly, the Act based upon some prima facie or tentative reading of some of the sections.

“If your lordships are going to stay a statutory provision,” Mehta said, “it by itself is rare. We will have to take your lordships to the history of legislation, followed by amendment”.

He said the government received several representations, which ultimately resulted into the amended Act.

Opposing the stay, the law officer referred to certain instances and said private properties were usurped as waqf in several places.

Terming it a “considered piece of legislation”, Mehta said the pleas were filed before the Presidential assent and taken immediately by the bench.

“We are not deciding the matter finally,” the bench said.

Mehta argued staying the provisions of the Act may be a “harsh step” and said the government should be allowed to place its preliminary reply.

“Allow me to place within a week my preliminary reply with some materials, documents and statutes to show,” he said, “and in one week, nothing will change”.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing a state government, said “heavens are not going to fall if the interim order is not passed for a week or so”.

Mehta further assured of not making appointments in the respective waqf boards even if some of the states were not before the court.

The CJI said, “We don’t want the position to change. Parliament makes laws, executive decides and judiciary interprets.”

The bench has also decided to hear only five of the total number of pleas before it and titled the case: “In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025”.

About 72 petitions, including those by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Anwar Basha former chairman Karnataka State Board of AUQAF represented by advocate Tariq Ahmed, Congress MPs Imran Pratapgarhi and Mohammad Jawed, were filed against the law.

Senior counsel including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Huzefa Ahmadi appear for the petitioners in the case.

While appointing three lawyers as the nodal counsel on Thursday, the bench asked the advocates to decide among themselves who was going to argue.

The petitioners were allowed to file their rejoinders to the Centre’s reply within five days of the service of the government’s response.

“We clarify that the next hearing (May 5) will be for the preliminary objections and for an interim order,” the bench said.

The bench said a writ petition challenging the 1995 Waqf Act and the amendment made in 2013 should be separately shown in the causelist.

On Wednesday, the bench was miffed over the inclusion of non-Muslims in the central waqf council and boards and asked the Centre whether it was willing to include Muslims in Hindu religious trusts.

The CJI had proposed to issue the notice and to pass an interim order, saying it will “balance the equities”.

Observing some provisions could have “grave ramifications”, particularly those that potentially undermine judicially recognised waqf properties, the CJI proposed the order.

“The properties declared as waqfs by the courts should not be de-notified, whether they are by waqf-by-wser or waqf by deed while the court is hearing the challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025,” he proposed.

“Waqf by user” refers to a practice where a property is recognised as a religious or charitable endowment (waqf) based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there isn’t a formal, written declaration of waqf by the owner.

The Centre notified the Act which received assent of President on April 5.