The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stop the notification of a central government for registration of all WAQF properties on a centralized digital portal within six months, instructions to individuals and organizations to follow the need, while the court consider the validity of the WAQF Amendment Act 2025.
A bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai made it clear that the court could not remain until the notification of June 6 issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs unless it gives its reserved decision on petitions challenging the 2025 law.
Justice Gawai told a lawyer seeking interim relief, “What can be the problem in complying with the direction?
When the lawyer pressured for a stay, it was indicated that the registry refused to list its application as the matter was already reserved, the Chief Justice replied: “When we have been reserved in this issue, how can we pass an interim order? Sorry!
The notification requires all WAQF properties to be registered on the portal (integrated WAQF management, empowerment, efficiency and development) portal within six months of its 6 June launch. According to the Center, the platform wishes to create a centralized, transparent repository of the details of Waqf property, including photos and geotagged spaces.
The deadline is not being registered within the risk and is considered as disputed and is potentially referred to a tribunal.
Petitions challenging the Act were argued in three days in May, after which the bench, including Justice AG Masi, reserved orders on 22 May. During those hearing, the court said that maintaining a list of Waqf properties had been part of the legal structure for more than a century.
“From 1923 to 2025, for more than 100 years, the scheme of various acts emphasized registration,” the bench had seen that there was no registration provision in the 1923 Muscleman Waqf Act, there was a need for information about Waqf. From the WAQF Act of 1954, registration became mandatory, in a 1976 report revealed why such registration was necessary.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioners, had argued that the community has been punished for state failure by transferring registration on Waqf Custodian. He said that the state was responsible for survey and identifying such assets since 1954, saying: “The state failure to do its job from 1954 to 2025 and due to their failure, a community is being punished.”
Sibal insisted that the law reduces the constitutional right of Muslims under Article 26 to administer its property.
The petitioners also challenged other provisions of the 2025 law, including a requirement that only a practice of at least five years can dedicate the property as WAQF only – not applied to other religious arrangements. Eligibility criteria.
Defending the law, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the “any person” allowed to dedicate the Waqf, as allowed by the 2013 amendment, was ideologically faulty. “Waqf, which is an Islamic concept, can be available to non-Islamic individuals?” He asked, stressing 2025 amendments, designed to increase transparency and curb misuse.
Another controversial issue was prohibited from making Waqf on land related to Scheduled Tribes. Mehta said the ban was aimed at protecting weak communities and their cultural identity, cited by the Joint Parliamentary Committee report, recommending security.
However, the bench expressed doubts and commented: “What is the connivance of not allowing Waqf on tribal land? Islam is Islam. Cultural traditions can be different, but religion is the same. If religion is demanded to be made by fraud or deception, it will go otherwise.”
During the May 22 hearing, senior lawyers Rajiv Dhavan and Abhishek Manu Singhvi highlighted how the Act allegedly discriminates against Muslims and abandons the risks of extinguishing historically recognized assets as waqf through risks or verbal traditions.
Dhawan argued that Charity is one of the five fundamental pillars of Islam, while Singhvi warned that the provisions around registration and government disputes created a “vicious cycle” that could block the recognition of legitimate Waqf.
The states supporting the Center and other interventions highlighted examples of perceived misuse, citing cases where large tracts, even the entire villages were claimed as Waqf property.
The petitions have challenged the Act on several constitutional grounds, alleging violations of fundamental rights and erosion of centuries old Waqf traditions. The Center has defended the law as an essential reform to ensure protection against accountability, transparency and encroachment.
