NEW DELHI, April 16 – India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday raised pointed questions about the inclusion of non-Muslims in Muslim religious endowment bodies and the potential rollback of historical waqf properties, as it heard a slew of petitions challenging the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, heading a three-judge bench, expressed concern over the far-reaching implications of the new law, which de-recognises “waqf-by-user” properties — assets used for religious or charitable purposes by Muslims for centuries without formal documentation — and grants the state greater authority over the determination and administration of waqf properties.
The court hearing comes in the wake of communal tensions in West Bengal, which the Chief Justice described as “very disturbing,” attributing them in part to the recent legislative changes.
The court considered a possible interim order proposing three key safeguards: preventing the de-notification of court-declared waqf properties, suspending a clause that freezes use of disputed properties during official review, and permitting non-Muslims to serve as ex-officio members in Waqf Boards, provided the majority of members remain Muslim.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, sought more time to respond, leading the bench to adjourn proceedings until Thursday afternoon without issuing an interim order.
“Before the British came, there was no land registration law. Many masjids were built in the 14th, 15th, and 17th centuries. Asking for registered sale deeds now is impossible,” Chief Justice Khanna said, referencing the Jama Masjid in Delhi as an example of a waqf-by-user property.
The 2025 amendment mandates proof of practising Islam for five years before a person can dedicate property as waqf — a clause petitioners argue violates constitutional rights to religious freedom under Article 26. “In short, I have to prove to the state that I am a good Muslim,” said senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners.
Another controversial provision allows government officials to determine whether a property is waqf or state-owned. Petitioners argue this creates a conflict of interest, as the same officer acts as both assessor and adjudicator. The court also took note of the lack of a functioning Central Waqf Council for over two years, despite the government claiming continuity under the existing structure.
During the hearing, Justice K.V. Viswanathan questioned the logic of allowing non-Muslims in waqf governance when Hindu religious endowments are typically overseen exclusively by Hindus. “Are you now saying you will allow Muslims to govern Hindu endowment bodies too?” asked Chief Justice Khanna.
Responding to the suggestion that religious control was being usurped, Mehta said, “If only Muslims can administer waqfs, then judges who are not Muslim cannot hear this case.” The Chief Justice retorted, “When we sit here, we lose our religion.”
India has over 800,000 registered waqf properties, of which around half are believed to be waqf-by-user. The amendment’s rollback of such recognition has triggered widespread alarm among Muslim communities and legal experts. The court is set to resume hearing on Thursday, with further arguments expected on the constitutional validity of the amended law.
