Wakf law- Courts cannot interfere unless there is a strong case: SC

#News Bureau May 20,2025

The Supreme Court heard arguments from petitioners requesting an interim stay on the Wakf Amendment Act and emphasized the need for strong and substantial grounds to justify such a move. Here are the key highlights from the hearing.

During the hearing of petitions challenging the Wakf Amendment Act, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai made a significant observation. He stated that any law passed by Parliament carries a presumption of constitutionality, and unless a clear and compelling case is presented, the courts cannot intervene. This remark comes in the backdrop of the ongoing debate surrounding the Wakf Amendment Act, which was enacted into law last month.

The hearing, held on Tuesday, lasted for over three hours and also addressed the issue of granting an interim stay. A bench comprising CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih remarked that a strong case must be established to justify the suspension of a law.

According to Live Law, CJI Gavai noted, “There is a presumption of constitutionality in favor of every law. For interim relief, you must present a very strong and clear case. If that threshold is not met, the presumption stands, and the courts cannot interfere.”

The recently enacted Waqf Amendment Act, passed by Parliament, focuses on the management and regulation of Waqf properties. Its stated aim is to improve transparency in the functioning of Waqf Boards, ensure more efficient administration of Waqf assets, and prevent misuse. However, several individuals and organizations have approached the Supreme Court, challenging certain provisions of the law as being unconstitutional.

During a hearing on the matter, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, argued that the Act was designed to facilitate the takeover of Waqf properties. He pointed to provisions such as the requirement that a person must have followed Islam for at least five years to create a Waqf, calling them discriminatory. Sibal also contended that the law permits the transfer of Waqf properties without proper legal safeguards, thereby violating constitutional principles.

Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, while presiding over the bench along with Justice A.G. Masih, emphasized that the court’s role is to assess the constitutional validity of laws. However, he clarified that such scrutiny can only proceed if the petitioners present compelling evidence of serious constitutional violations. In the current circumstances, he said, there was no need for the court to intervene or issue an interim stay.

Sibal raised multiple concerns, claiming that the new law alters the fundamental nature of Waqf properties and risks them no longer being recognized as Waqf. He also highlighted that, under the Constitution, the state cannot provide financial support to religious institutions. In his view, the law undermines the traditional practice of individuals dedicating private property for religious purposes, such as mosques or cemeteries, and imposes barriers that could discourage such acts.

Key Provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act:

• Digital Records: Waqf property records will be maintained digitally to promote transparency.
• Board Composition: Provision to include non-Muslim members on the Waqf Board.
• Religious Requirement: Individuals must have followed Islam for at least five years to create a Waqf.
• Central Oversight: The central government has been granted expanded powers over the management of Waqf properties.

While the government presents these changes as reforms intended to modernize and improve the Waqf system, critics argue that the provisions infringe upon religious freedoms and the autonomy of Waqf institutions.

The Supreme Court has declined to impose an interim stay on the Act, reiterating that without strong and clearly established grounds against its constitutionality, the law will remain in force. The petitioners have been given more time to strengthen their arguments, and the matter will be taken up again in the next hearing.

Meanwhile, the central government continues to defend the Act as a necessary step toward ensuring accountability and efficiency in the administration of Waqf properties. The Chief Justice’s remarks underscore the judiciary’s cautious approach in interfering with legislation passed by Parliament unless a serious breach of constitutional principles is evident.

4o