Supreme Court and Waqf Bill: The Supreme Court has started hearing again on Tuesday on petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act passed by Parliament amidst heavy opposition from Muslims across the country. A two -member bench headed by Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gawai heard the arguments of the side and the opposition. At the end of the hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court said that until concrete evidence is found that the Constitution is being violated, the Supreme Court will not intervene in it. He said that the laws passed by Parliament have a notion of constitutionality and the court will not interfere in any law until there is concrete evidence to prove whether it is constitutional or not.
A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Christ on Tuesday started hearing on petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Earlier, the case was being heard by former Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna. Prior to his retirement, he transferred the matter to the back of the current Chief Justice BR Gavai. On behalf of the petitioners challenging the Chief Justice Gawai, and the Waqf Amendment Act, Kapil Sibal said that the laws passed by the Parliament have a notion of constitutionality. For interim relief, you have to present a strong evidence that the law violates the constitution. Otherwise, the notion of constitutionalism will remain.
The Central Government had urged the Supreme Court to pass an interim order limiting the hearing of the petitions challenging the legislativeness of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, which includes the power to non-study the public waqf properties of courts, users and boards through deeds. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, said that the court has identified three issues. However, the petitioners also want to hear on many other issues besides these three issues. I have filed the government’s affidavit in response to these three issues. I request that the current case be limited to only three points.
The first of the three issues raised by the central government, the Waqf by the court, the user has the power to non-defrooted public properties through Waqf or Deed via Waqf. The second issue is related to the formation of the State Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Parishad, in which the petitioners argue that the members of the board and the council should not include members of religions other than Muslims. The third issue is related to the provision according to which the collector will try to investigate whether any land is government in the assets declared and this property will not be considered as Waqf until the investigation report is received.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court asked the petitioners whether there was a provision for Waqf registration in the previous Waqf Act? Was registration mandatory or just a guideline? If any results have to be suffered due to non -registration, then registration may be mandatory. Responding to the Supreme Court, Kapil Sibal said that there was a provision for registration of Waqf in the provisions from 1913 to 2013, but there was no action for not following it, only Mutavalli was removed. Registration by Waqf users was not mandatory before 2025.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the petitioners challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf Amendment Act, protested against the arguments of the Center, saying that an important law cannot be heard in pieces. Kapil Sibal argued that the revised law violates Article 25 of the Constitution. This article guarantees the right to follow religion, to conduct and propagate it. He said, “We will debate all issues.” This is a matter of occupying the entire Waqf property.
Cannes 2025: Did Janhvi deliberately adopt mother Sridevi’s style, ‘No Nudity’ rules also in discussion
Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court that hearing should be held on issuing an interim order in this case. This law is unconstitutional and tries to control and seize Waqf property. By amending the law, a provision has been made that if there is a suspicion of any dispute on the property to be donated, the investigation will be conducted and the collector will investigate it. There is no time limit for investigation. The property will not be considered vaqf until the investigation is completed. Additionally, Waqf property is given in the name of Allah. Once the Waqf is established, it is established forever. The government cannot provide financial assistance in this.
CJI’s sharp answer to Kapil Sibal
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that donations are not allowed in mosques like temples.
– Despite being a Khajuraho protected monument, people can go and worship there: Chief Justice
New Delhi: Hearing the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, the issue of identification of government properties in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. During this time, the Supreme Court rejected the pleas of senior advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of the petitioners that donations are not donated to mosques like temples and if Waqf properties are declared a monument, Muslims will not get the right to worship.
During the hearing of petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act on Tuesday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said that the maintenance and operation of the dargahs and mosques is from the income from Waqf properties. Donations here are not made in the same way that donations are given in boxes in temples. In response to Sibal’s plea, Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai said that he had gone to the dargah and saw people donating there.
Apart from this, Kapil Sibal, citing the amendment in the Waqf Act, said that the amendment in the law will protect the Waqf property, but this will confiscate the Waqf property. Arguing about ancient sites, Sibal said that there are some historical monuments, which even if taken under government control, their Waqf status would not have ended. But now if a Waqf property gets the status of a protected monument, it will not be considered as Waqf property. If the status of Waqf is abolished, then Muslims will be stopped from performing their religious worship there. This will affect the right to worship. However, Chief Justice Gawai said that Khajuraho is currently a protected monument. However, the common people can still go to the temples there.
