Waqf Act: The Supreme Court resumed hearing pleas against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on Wednesday. This marks the second day of back-to-back proceedings, where multiple petitioners are seeking an interim stay on the amended legislation. The hearings began on Tuesday with strong opposition from senior advocates, raising concerns over the law’s implications on private property and judicial fairness.
Kapil Sibal Raises Questions on Purpose of the Act
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for one of the petitioners. He argued that although the Act appears to protect waqf properties, it is actually intended to take control of such properties through non-judicial and executive measures. He expressed concerns that the amendment is being used to seize private properties under the cover of waqf-related disputes. According to him, disputes are being misused as a basis to take away lands owned by private individuals.
Centre Defends Legality and Government’s Rights
On Wednesday, the Centre defended the Act. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated before the court that the government is fully within its rights to reclaim properties declared as waqf if they are, in fact, government-owned lands. He referred to the “waqf by user” principle and pointed out that a past Supreme Court judgment supports the government’s authority in such matters. He emphasized that no one has the right to claim ownership over government land, regardless of its waqf status.
Centre Argues Act Is Constitutionally Sound
Continuing his argument, Mehta said the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, cannot be easily questioned. He submitted a detailed 145-page note, arguing that waqf is a secular concept and simply refers to the dedication of property. The Centre maintained that Parliament has full legislative competence to pass the law. Mehta also noted that no directly affected party has approached the court so far. He added that the law was passed after consultations with multiple state governments and waqf boards, and the parliamentary committee report also supported the legislation.
Supreme Court Sets High Bar for Interim Relief
The bench, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine G Masih, remarked that the court would need to see “a very strong and glaring case” to put the law on hold temporarily. This comment indicates the high threshold that petitioners must meet to succeed in their request for an interim stay.
Also Read
Dailynews24 App :
Read the latest News of Country, Education, Entertainment, Business Updates, Religion, Cricket, Horoscope Here. Read Daily Breaking News in English and Short Video News Covers.
