Site icon

SC to hear pleas challenging Waqf Amendment Act today

SC to hear pleas challenging Waqf Amendment Act today

SC to hear pleas challenging Waqf Amendment Act today

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a series of petitions today challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. A bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai will consider whether to stay the enforcement of the amended law while the case is under review. The hearing will focus on granting interim relief to the petitioners, with arguments from all sides before the Court decides on the stay.

The central government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has assured the Court that the contentious provisions of the Act will not be enforced until further notice. Earlier, the government also committed not to de-notify Waqf properties based on user or deed, nor to include non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board.

In a previous hearing, presided over by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the Court identified three key issues: the process of de-notifying Waqf properties, whether such properties are designated by usage or deed, the possible inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf institutions, and the classification of government land as Waqf property. The Court had allowed a week for the Centre, state governments, and Waqf Boards to submit their initial responses.

Five petitions have been designated as lead cases, and other applications will be treated as intervention requests. The Court also ordered the cause titles to be renamed as “In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.”

Petitioners argue that the amendments are discriminatory and violate the fundamental rights of the Muslim community. Conversely, six BJP-controlled states support the amendments, deeming them constitutional and necessary.

The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, received presidential approval from Droupadi Murmu on April 5, after passing both Houses of Parliament amid intensive debate. The Centre has urged the Court to dismiss the petitions, contending that the law does not breach constitutional protections.

Exit mobile version