The Supreme Court on Tuesday said petitioners challenging WAQF laws needed a “strong and obvious” case for interim relief. Denote the property as “the property of the court, waqf by-user or waqf”.
“It is conducive to the constitutionality of each regulation. In order to perform temporary relief, you must bring a very strong and obvious case. Otherwise, the presumption of constitutionality will exist.”
Sibar describes the law as “totally different from historical law and constitutional principles and “a means of capturing WAQF through non-judicial processes.” The Center’s Deputy Attorney General Tushar Mehta urged the bench to limit the hearing to three issues. One of the issues is the power to declare the court, the journeyman or the Walker as the property of the WAQF.
The second question involves the composition of the National WAQF Board and the Central WAQF Committee, who believe that only Muslims can operate and unless they are current members, the last one is in the provisions of the provisions that when the WAQF property is stipulated, it will not be considered as a WAQF when the collector asks.
Mehta’s lawsuit has been strongly opposed by senior advocates Sibal and Abhishek M Singhvi, who appear to challenge the 2025 law, and believe that any piecemeal hearings cannot be held. “This is a case about the system capturing WAQF properties. The government cannot decide what questions to ask,” Sibar said.
Sibar said the amended law could systematically acquire WAQF property through enforcement means, bypassing proper judicial proceedings, and in addition, WAQF Properties could become non-WAQF property that could also deny the rights granted to courts by the damaged party through executive orders. “WAQF is Waqif’s dedication to ‘Allah’ and also a concept that once WAQF always WAQF is endangered by the 2025 law,” he said.
He added that earlier laws on the subject protected the property and are currently intended to take it away. He said the law is “completely different from historical law and constitutional principles.” Sibar said the law stipulates the “gradual acquisition” of WAQF property and undermines the concept of WAQF, a permanent donation for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law.
He refers to Section 3C of the Act, which he said allows designated officials to ask whether the property is government land. Strangely, in the case of such inquiries, the property should not be considered a WAQF and effectively gives authorities control without judicial review. He also mentioned Sections 9 and 14 and said they changed the composition of the central and state WAQF boards and allowed most non-Muslims to be part of it.
“This is an attempt to weaken community control, and Article 23 allows the appointment of non-Muslims as CEO of the WAQF Board of Directors,” he said. He also dealt with the validity of Article 3D of the law and stated that any WAQF property declared as an ancient monument under the preservation law will no longer be a WAQF.
He asked the authorities how to request documentary evidence or deeds from WAQF created centuries before 1954, especially after 1923, that may have been authorized to register, but the lack of it did not negate the nature of the WAQF.
“Did citizens stop practicing their religious beliefs due to the announcement of the ancient monument laws?” the bench asked, referring to his recent visit to religious sites and saying that Hindus was not prohibited from offering prayers.
Sibar said the 2025 Act differs from older legislation, such as the Ancient Monument Protection Act of 1904 and 1958, retains the right to religious practice. He explained this with Delhi Jama Masjid, which could be used as a WAQF despite being notified as a protected area.
However, he said the 2025 Amendment (3D) invalidates the declaration of protected monuments because the law violates Articles 14 (right to equality) 25 and 26 (the right to practice and the right to spread religion in the Constitution).
He added that if the amended provision is allowed to be implemented, irreparable harm will be caused, especially the provisions that allow review of pending inquiries without judicial decisions. He said registration under the previous WAQF Act was mandatory, but not registration did not change the religious nature of the property, which was not the case under the amended law.
He said that the user’s WAQF history does not require registration, but under the new law, he could put Mutawalli (Custodian) in jail for six months if he could not satisfactorily answer the new laws on property. “When they are declared as protected monuments, they lose their WAQF status,” he said.
He also marked the dilution of Muslims in the Central WAQF Commission and argued that the amended law now allows most non-Muslim members – very different from the previous norms.
“The board members were elected, they were Muslim. Now they are all nominated. There will be 11 members and 7 members can be non-Muslim. This violates Articles 25 and 26. Management must be done by the community.” The judge looked at the provision carefully and said the law restricted non-Muslim appointments to two. “Even two people are too many,” Sibar said.
Sibal compared it to the Religious Donation Committee of Hindus and Sikhs, saying that even in those cases, even officials and board members always had the same faith, the WAQF board should be no different. “This is not secularism. WAQF creation is a religious act.” Rajeev Dhavan, a senior advocate representing another petitioner, said the statute was an “attack on secularism and cultural autonomy.”
He said the doctrine of proportion did not follow the center for legal changes because there was no connection between the problems seeking to resolve and “these extreme solutions.” Singhvi, on the other hand, questioned the provision, which says that those who practice Islam over the past five years can only create one WAQF.
Singhvi calls it “arbitrary and endless”, saying that no other religion bears such a burden. He raised concerns about Section 3(c), saying that once the property is declared non-WAQF, legal remedies will be closed to lock in beneficiaries in a “vicious cycle”. Singhvi said that in the case of submission of the answer center, laws passed by Congress generally cannot be retained, Singhvi said the Supreme Court held farm laws.
Regarding the argument that the center has “increased 1600%” after the 2013 amendment, Singhwi said the rise was due to digitalization and listing processes rather than new acquisitions.
