The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its verdict on September 15 on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and seeking a stay on its implementation.
The matter was extensively argued before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai earlier this year. The hearings, which began shortly after Justice Gavai assumed office in May, spanned three consecutive days and concluded on May 22, with the judgment reserved.
The legal challenge was brought almost immediately after Parliament cleared the Amendment Bill in April. On April 17, the Supreme Court — then led by outgoing Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna — took up the case and secured an undertaking from the Union government that it would refrain from altering the nature or status of waqf properties based on the new law until the court had its say.
Following Justice Khanna’s retirement on May 13, the matter came before a new Bench consisting of Chief Justice Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, who resumed proceedings on May 15. When the case was taken up again on May 20, Chief Justice Gavai remarked that laws passed by Parliament are presumed to be constitutional, and that issuing a stay on such legislation is a measure the court rarely takes.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has been a political and legal flashpoint, drawing challenges from over 100 petitioners, including Opposition MPs, state governments, civil society groups, and prominent Muslim organisations. Critics of the law allege that it enables a “systematic expropriation” of Muslim waqf properties under the guise of regulation and reform.
The Centre, however, has justified the amendments, arguing they are necessary to curb what it describes as widespread encroachments — not only on waqf land but on other public and private properties as well.
The high-profile case has seen appearances by some of the country’s most senior legal minds. Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan, and Huzefa Ahmadi are among those representing the petitioners. The Union government is being defended by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, with additional support from Rakesh Dwivedi and Ranjit Kumar, who are appearing for the governments of Rajasthan and Haryana, both of which have backed the Centre’s position.
“This case is about more than just property — it’s about autonomy and constitutional protection,” Sibal had argued during the hearings. “The government cannot unilaterally decide what questions can or cannot be raised.”
Beyond the courtroom, the legislation has sparked widespread outrage, particularly among Muslim groups who view the Act as discriminatory and Islamophobic. Large-scale protests have been staged in several cities, with leaders from the INDIA alliance and other non-BJP parties joining the demonstrations and demanding a rollback of the law.
As the nation awaits the verdict, the ruling is expected to have significant implications — not only for the future of waqf property governance but also for the larger debate on minority rights, federalism, and the limits of parliamentary power.
