Hearing in Supreme Court : Waqf Law It is designed to take over Waqf properties – Kapil Sibel
NEW DELHI :Petitioners in the Supreme Court argue that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 allows the government to seize waqf properties through non-judicial means, threatening their religious status. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal called the law a major departure from past protections.
Petitions challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 were heard in the Supreme Court. A three-judge bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan heard the case. Petitions have been filed against the Waqf Act by many opposition parties and leaders, including Congress, DMK, Aam Aadmi Party, YSRCP, AIMIM, etc. NGOs and organizations like All India Muslim Personal Law Board have also approached the apex court against it.
The petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 were heard once again in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said in the Supreme Court today that the creation of Waqf is not a secular process, but it is a matter of Muslims dedicating their property to God. He argued against the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Waqf bodies prescribed in the Waqf Amendment Act, which became law this year.
On Waqf by user, Sibal said that offerings come to temples but not to mosques. This is Waqf by user. Babri Masjid was also like this. From 1923 to 1954, there were different provisions, but the basic principles remained the same. Kapil Sibal said that private properties donated to Waqf are being taken away only because there is a dispute. This law has been designed to take over Waqf properties.
Mr Sibal, who appeared for the petitioner, argued that the structure of the Central Waqf Council under the new law is such that Muslims can become a minority. The Minister of Minority Affairs is an ex-officio member in the 22-member body. Ten of its members should be selected from Muslims. Others include jurists, national level persons and a bureaucrat. The senior advocate argued that the control of the body has been taken away from Muslims.
Kapil Sibal said that once a Waqf is made, it is forever. The government cannot provide financial assistance in it. There is no offering in mosques, Waqf institutions run on donations. Kapil Sibal said that the collector will investigate. There is no time limit for the investigation. Until the investigation report comes, the property will not be considered a Waqf.
Pointing to Hindu and Sikh institutions, Mr. Sibal said, “Every religious endowment, not a single person is Muslim or non-Hindu.” Chief Justice BR Gavai then asked, “What about Bodh Gaya? All are Hindus.” Mr. Sibal said, “I knew you would ask this”, and pointed out that places of worship can be the same for Hindus and Buddhists. “These are mosques. It is not secular. The building of Waqf itself is not secular. It is a Muslim property dedicated to God,” Mr. Sibal said.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, said the new law was a recipe to ensure that the applicant was “forever” making rounds of the office for waqf registration. “This is just to spread terror… Every religion has endowments. Which religious endowment asks you to prove that you have been following it for the last 5 years? Who asks them for proof of religion?” Mr Singhvi said the property loses its waqf status as soon as a dispute is raised under the new law.
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi asked how someone would be recognized as a practicing Muslim for meeting the criteria under the new law. “Can someone ask me, do you offer namaaz five times a day… and then someone will ask me if I drink alcohol… is this how it will be decided?” The hearing of the case will resume tomorrow. Earlier today, Chief Justice Gavai said a law passed by Parliament carries a presumption of constitutionality and courts cannot interfere unless a clear case is made out.
The Wakf Amendment Act, which was passed by Parliament and became law last month, triggered protests across the country as Muslim bodies claimed it was an attack on minorities and accused the government of monopolizing wakf lands. The government insists the amendments are aimed at making the functioning of wakf boards more efficient, inclusive and transparent.
