By The Sampadak Express
The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Centre urged the court to restrict the proceedings to three specific legal issues, emphasizing that it had already filed its responses to those points.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Augustine George Masih took up the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, requested the court to confine the hearing to the three issues identified earlier. “We have responded to these three issues in our affidavit,” Mehta said, objecting to the expansion of arguments beyond the agreed scope.
The three issues under focus are:
1. Whether properties declared as waqf by courts, by usage, or by deed can be de-notified.
2. Whether a property should be excluded from waqf status based on an inquiry by a district collector.
3. Whether the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, which petitioners claim are restricted to Muslims (excluding ex-officio members), violates constitutional principles.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, opposed the Centre’s request, arguing that a fragmented hearing would be inappropriate. “There cannot be a piecemeal approach to such a crucial matter,” Sibal submitted, urging the court to examine the entire law holistically.
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized the principle of constitutional validity, stating, “There is a presumption of constitutionality for statutes. Courts can’t interfere unless a glaring case is made out. That’s what we have been taught since law school.”
Sibal strongly argued that the 2025 amendments were not merely protective of waqf properties but instead facilitated their capture. He said the amendments could lead to waqf properties being taken over without due process, disturbing their religious dedication.
He also raised concerns about the requirement for Muslims to prove their identity to dedicate waqf property, and the new role assigned to district collectors in determining whether a property is waqf or government-owned.
Sibal warned of “irreparable damage” and asserted that the amendments violated fundamental rights, including the right to equality, dignity, and the freedom to manage religious affairs.
