In a high-stakes constitutional showdown over the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed deep concern over reports of ongoing violence in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district linked to the controversy.
“One thing is very disturbing — the violence that is taking place. If the matter is pending here, it should not happen,” remarked Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, reflecting the bench’s disapproval of street-level unrest while judicial scrutiny is underway.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, responded: “Yes, they think they can pressurize the system by this.”
But senior advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for the petitioners, shot back sharply, “Who is pressuring whom, we don’t know.”
The three-judge bench, comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan, is currently hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The bench reiterated that Article 26 of the Constitution does not prohibit the enactment of laws governing waqfs but expressed reservations about certain provisions and their sweeping implications.
Among the major concerns raised was the reclassification of public trusts as waqfs some dating back a century or more.
“You cannot rewrite the past of 100 years,” CJI Khanna said firmly, cautioning against attempts to subsume long-established trusts under waqf control retroactively.
SG Mehta defended the government’s stance by citing the JPC (Joint Parliamentary Committee) report, emphasising inclusivity: “Two members will be women. It has become inclusive.”
However, he also stated that all members of Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, except ex-officio ones, must be Muslims, sparking a sharp exchange with the bench.
In a move to maintain status quo and prevent irreversible changes during the pendency of the case, the Court proposed an interim order with the following key elements that no de-notification of Waqf properties.
Properties declared by courts as waqfs, whether by deed or by long-term use shall not be declassified.
The bench also proposed that the clause stating that a property shall not be treated as waqf during a Collector’s inquiry into whether it is government land will not be enforced.
On the composition of Board, the bench proposed that all appointed members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council must be Muslims, excluding ex-officio members.
Justice Kumar pressed SG Mehta on the logic of restricting Board membership exclusively to Muslims. “Clause (c) doesn’t say that only two non-Muslims can be appointed,” he pointed out.
Mehta responded that the Centre would clarify the matter through an affidavit and maintained, “This is for new Boards. Existing Boards will complete their tenure.”
CJI Khanna also grilled Mehta on religious inclusivity: “Are you saying Muslims can now be appointed to Hindu Endowment Boards too? Say it openly.”
The SG quipped, “Then this bench cannot hear the case!”—prompting the CJI to retort: “When we sit here, we lose our religion. Both sides are the same for us.”
The heated exchange in the Courtroom veered into historical territory as the bench questioned the retroactive application of waqf status to properties governed by public trust acts.
Sibal emphasized the absence of a functioning Central Waqf Council historically, while the SG cited past judgments including one from the Hyderabad Nizam era supporting the coexistence of trusts and waqfs.
However, the CJI was unrelenting: “If a public trust was declared waqf 200 years ago, how can it now be reclaimed or reversed by the Waqf Board?”
The Court then issued a notice and directed all parties to file their responses.
The matter will continue on Thursday (tomorrow) at 2 PM, with the bench likely to finalise the interim directions.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the petitioners, emphasised the urgency and significance of the case. “This is a matter of the moment,” said Sibal.
The Centre agreed to a day-to-day hearing and committed to submitting its response within two weeks.
SG Mehta also requested that the Court record his statement: no more than two non-Muslims will be appointed to the boards, apart from the two ex-officio members.
