The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing several petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. On Thursday, April 17, the Centre assured the court that it will not make any new appointments to the Waqf Boards or change the status of waqf properties—including those labelled as “waqf-by-user”—until the next hearing, scheduled for May 5.

This assurance came a day after the court expressed concerns over three specific parts of the law and indicated it might temporarily stop them. The court is not passing any immediate orders but wants the current situation to remain unchanged.

 What did SC say, what assurances were given?

On Thursday, the Centre’s assurance was recorded in an official order by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. The bench also included Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan.

The court order stated:

“It is also stated that until the next date of hearing, no waqf, including a waqf-by-user, whether declared by way of notification or by way of registration, shall be de-notified, nor will their character or status be changed.”

This means that properties already marked as waqf—whether through official notices or through registration—cannot be changed, removed, or have their nature altered for now.

The court also addressed the controversial provision in the 2025 Act that allows non-Muslims to be appointed to the Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre, assured the court that:

“Till the next date of hearing, no appointments would be made to the Central Waqf Council and the Waqf Boards.”
And if any state “makes any such appointment(s), the same may be declared void.”

This means no new appointments—especially of non-Muslims—will happen until the matter is properly heard. If any state tries to make such appointments in the meantime, the court may declare them illegal.

The court also said that this hearing on May 5 will be a “preliminary hearing”, and if required, interim orders will be passed to maintain balance in the situation.

Centre asks for more time to present its case

The Centre requested one week’s time to submit an affidavit (written explanation and supporting documents) before the Supreme Court makes any temporary order. The bench agreed and gave seven days to the Union government, state governments, and Waqf Boards to file their replies.

The petitioners—those who have challenged the law—can then file a response within five days of receiving these replies. The court also clarified that it was not staying the law completely at this stage but just wanted to make sure the present situation did not change too much.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the court should not stay any part of the law without fully understanding its background. He explained that the waqf laws have a long history, going back to 1923, 1935, 1954, 1984, and later 1995. He said that the current amendments in 2025 were made after receiving “lakhs and lakhs” of representations (feedback and requests) from the public.

Mehta gave an example:

“Villages and villages are taken as waqf. Private properties of individuals are taken as waqf, and I have orders which say when they approach the High Court, (they are told) these are disputed questions of fact. It is a considered piece of legislation.”

He said that the issue was serious, as it affected “a large number of innocent people, their right to land, and their right to property”.

To this, Justice Sanjay Kumar responded, saying the court was not deciding the whole matter yet.

But Mehta was still concerned. He said:

“Your lordships are taking a very serious and harsh step in staying partly, indirectly, or in whichever way one may call it, some statutory provisions without complete assistance. My request is this… Allow me to place it within a week, and I promise your Lordships it will come before your Lordship within a week, my preliminary reply, some material documents with documents and statutes to show… This is not a matter which Your Lordships would also like to consider on prima facie reading.”

CJI Khanna replied with a clear statement:

“Let me also very clearly put it. Somebody did say there should be a complete stay. We said nothing doing… At the same time, we don’t want the situation to change… We don’t want whatever situation today is prevailing to change so drastically that it affects…”

He continued by saying:

“There are provisions like the provisions which you have enacted regarding the five-year requirement (that to create a waqf, a person must have been a practising Muslim for at least 5 years); we are not stating that. All that we want to do… You are right absolutely. One of the thumb rules the courts apply is they don’t stay the legislation at the preliminary stage. At the same time, there’s another thumb rule… that when the matter is pending consideration before the court, the situation as it is prevailing today should continue so as not to upset the rights of the parties.”

Mehta responded, saying:

“Even for the purpose of deciding what will be the fallout of Your Lordship's order also, Your Lordship will need some documents… If you were to say something about waqf-by-user, what would be the fallout of that? Please hear us. Allow me to place material on record. One week, nothing would change; nothing can change.”

When the court asked what would happen if a state government appoints someone during this period, Mehta said:

“…any state which is not represented (before the court) makes any appointment [and] may be treated as void.”

On the question about waqf-by-user properties registered under Section 36 of the 1995 Waqf Act, Mehta gave an important assurance. He said their status will not change if they are already “declared” and “registered”.

CJI Khanna further clarified:

“If it is registered in terms of Section 36 of the 1995 Act. I am not talking about registration now… We don’t want the position to change.”

 

You might also be interested in: No new Waqf board members or changes till next SC hearing