On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued notices to the central government and other concerned parties in response to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih took up the plea filed by petitioner Nikhil Upadhyay, represented by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
The bench directed the petition to be tagged with other similar petitions already pending before the court.
Advocate Upadhyay referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated April 17, which dealt with challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. He noted that the court had directed petitions contesting the 1995 Act and the 2013 amendments to be listed separately in the cause list.
Questioning the timing of the challenge, Chief Justice Gavai asked, “Why should a challenge to the 1995 Act be entertained in 2025?” He also raised concerns over the delay in filing the petition.
In response, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that the plea specifically targets the 2013 amendments to the original Act.
Upadhyay also pointed out that the Supreme Court is currently hearing challenges to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, which were filed in 2020.
He argued that the present plea is similar and should be heard.
Agreeing to proceed with the matter, the bench formally tagged the plea with other petitions raising similar constitutional questions.
The petition contends that Parliament cannot enact laws that exclusively benefit waqf institutions or protect waqf properties to the detriment of non-Muslims.
It further alleges that the provisions of the Waqf Act offer undue advantages to waqf properties.
Separately, on May 22, the Supreme Court had reserved interim orders on three major issues related to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, after hearing arguments from both sides.
One key issue concerns the authority to de-notify properties previously declared as waqf—whether by court ruling, longstanding usage, or deed—as permitted under the new law.
The petitioners have also challenged the structure of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, arguing that only Muslims, apart from ex-officio members, should serve on these bodies.
The third issue in contention involves a provision that allows the district collector to determine whether a property is government land, in which case it would not be considered waqf property.
Defending the 2025 amendments, the Centre asserted that waqf is inherently a secular concept and emphasized the legal presumption in favor of a law’s constitutionality, urging the court not to stay the Act.
