Challenge to the Waqf amendment: As SC sets in for substantive hearings, a break-down of Petitioner’s consolidated written submissions and contentious issues
Even as the Union’s affidavit and rejoinders were filed by May 4, outgoing CJI Khanna deferred the hearings to CJI Gavai’s tenure. Today, at last, the petitions, including interventions challenging and supporting the Waqf amendment will be heard substantively.
Sadeeq Sherwani
Published on: 20 May 2025, 05:31 am
AS THE SUPREME COURT GEARS UP to continue hearing the petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on May 20, here is a look at the proceedings so far.
The matter was first taken up on April 16 by a Division Bench led by the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna and comprised of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. V. Vishwanathan.
The matter was heard for two consecutive days before being adjourned for May 5 at the instance of the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, as he prayed for a week to file an affidavit on behalf of the Union government, which he was directed to file by April 24.
The affidavit of the Union and the rejoinders, thereto, were filed by May 4. However, given his impending retirement on May 13, CJI Khanna deferred the batch of petitions to a new bench led by his successor, the then CJI-designate, B. R. Gavai. CJI Khanna also expressed his unwillingness to pass an interim order as the Union reiterated its commitment that no waqf properties would be denotified, and no appointments would be made to waqf boards or councils until the next hearing.
CJI Khanna also expressed his unwillingness to pass an interim order as the Union reiterated its commitment that no waqf properties would be denotified, and no appointments would be made to waqf boards or councils until the next hearing.
Scope of hearing was limited on May 15
The matter was last taken up on May 15 by the Bench led by CJI B. R. Gavai, with Justice A. G. Masih. The scope of the hearing was limited to whether or not an interim relief was necessary, including a stay on the specific provisions of the Act, such as the appointment of non-Muslim in the Waqf Boards and the Waqf Council, or the denotification of waqf-by-user properties.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, filed consolidated written submissions for the petitioners, whereas the Solicitor General was directed to submit the Centre’s response by May 19.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing a Hindu party, attempted to challenge both the 1995 Act and the 2025 Amendment, arguing that they were discriminatory. The Bench, however, refused to entertain the challenges to the 1995 Act, stating that the focus shall be directed to the 2025 Act. Given the number of counsels involved, the Court emphasised maintaining order during arguments.
Advocate Dr G. Mohan Gopal, appearing for an intervener, Shree Narayan Manava Dharam Trust, argued that the lead petitions being all Muslim individuals or organisations gives the impression that only the Muslims are aggrieved by the Act. He stated that Hindu individuals and organisations, such as the one he was appearing for, were equally aggrieved and stressed that the Petitioners are not all Muslims; rather, it is a secular united front, and the proceedings of the Court should reflect that. On this, the Bench pointed out that the cause title of the case is no longer in the name of any individual or organisation and is now titled, ‘In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025’.
