CJI declines oral mentioning of pleas challenging Waqf amendments

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on Monday declined to entertain oral requests for urgent listing of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, pointing out that the Supreme Court has a “robust system of listing” in place.

“Why are you mentioning orally? There is a robust system in place for urgent listing. Please, send a letter of urgency and that will be placed before me,” CJI Khanna told senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who had sought an early hearing on a petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani.

When Sibal responded that the mentioning letter had already been submitted, CJI Khanna replied: “I will get the letter and do the needful. All these requests are placed before me every afternoon. There is no need to mention.”

A similar request was made by senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi and advocate Nizam Pasha in some other petitions that have also assailed the validity of the amendments in the Waqf Act. Pasha was appearing for the petition filed by Lok Sabha parliamentarian and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi. The CJI, however, remained firm on the protocol for mentioning, indicating that the court would examine the listing request in due course.

The petitions challenge sweeping amendments passed by Parliament on April 4 and signed into law by the President on April 5. The Act overhauls key provisions governing the administration, recognition and control of Islamic charitable endowments – waqfs -- triggering a series of legal challenges by political leaders, religious bodies, and community representatives.

Also Read: After Waqf, BJP will take away land of Christians, Hindu temples: Thackeray

Several writ petitions under Article 32 have been filed so far in the top court, challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. These include separate petitions by Owaisi and Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, both of which were filed last week, as well as the fresh petitions by Madani and Kerala-based religious organisation Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema. Amanatullah Khan, a legislator from Delhi, had also approached the court when the Waqf Bill was still pending Presidential assent.

Collectively, the petitions argue that the new law discriminates against Muslims, disproportionately interferes with the community’s religious rights, and undermines decades of jurisprudence on waqf practices in India.

Madani’s petition, filed through advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, attacks the legislation for being “unconstitutional and destructive” to the waqf framework in India. It seeks a stay on the notification under Section 1(2) of the Act, warning that once operationalised, several waqf properties, including those historically created without written deeds, would become vulnerable due to stringent requirements for registration and digital documentation.

The petition strongly opposes the deletion of the principle of “waqf by user” -- a longstanding evidentiary rule that recognized oral and customary dedications. The removal, it argues, strikes at the very core of India’s Islamic charitable heritage, particularly endowments like mosques and graveyards that lack formal deeds but have existed and functioned for centuries.

Owaisi and Jawed’s petitions, filed last Friday, accuse the government of enacting a law that not only targets a specific community but also rolls back the progressive waqf reforms of 1995 and 2013.

While Owaisi has flagged the new requirement for waqif (creator of the waqf) to demonstrate five years of Islamic practice as exclusionary -- especially for new converts -- Jawed points out the asymmetry in the treatment of Hindu and Sikh religious institutions, which remain insulated from such intrusive state oversight.

Both leaders have questioned the deletion of Section 104 of the Waqf Act, which earlier allowed non-Muslims to create waqfs, as well as the newly inserted Section 3(ix)(b) that invalidates oral waqfs. They stress that the new law disregards historical and cultural practices and violates principles of equality, non-discrimination, and proportionality embedded in the Constitution.

They also cite the Supreme Court’s 1954 precedent in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Vs Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, to argue that while state regulation of religious institutions is permissible, administration must remain with the denomination itself.

Another controversial provision under challenge is the introduction of Sections 3D and 3E, moved via amendment by Union Minister Kiren Rijiju during the Lok Sabha debate. Section 3D bars waqf declarations over monuments protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, potentially derecognising historic mosques and shrines. Section 3E prohibits Scheduled Tribes from creating waqfs -- another provision petitioners argue is discriminatory and constitutionally untenable.

The developments come after the bill saw a charged passage through Parliament, with the Rajya Sabha clearing it in the early hours of last Friday, after a marathon 13.5-hour debate and a face-off between the government and the Opposition. The Lok Sabha had passed it a day ago.