The Supreme Court of India heard several petitions against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih is hearing the matter.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioners, said the new Waqf law is an attempt by the government to take control of Waqf properties. Sibal argued, “The new act is brought to protect Waqf but is designed to capture it.” He also said the law allows personal property to be taken away using the power of legislation.

He added, “The entire idea of Waqf is that it’s my property, but it’s being taken away with a legislative diktat."

The petitioners also raised concerns about the requirement to prove that someone is a practising Muslim. They asked the court, “Why do I have to prove I’m a practising Muslim?”

CJI says courts will interfere only if strong case is made

In response to these arguments, CJI Gavai said that the court will not interfere in the matter unless a very strong case is made. He said, “It is about constitutionality… Courts don’t usually interfere. So unless you make a very strong case... Because the presumption is with regard to the constitution of the statute."

The Chief Justice of India also said that there are many disputes about Waqf properties in Aurangabad. Earlier, on May 20, the Supreme Court said it would hear arguments about giving temporary orders on three important issues. These include the power to remove properties from the Waqf list even if courts have already declared them as Waqf, the question of Waqf-by-user, where properties are claimed as Waqf because they have been used that way for a long time, and Waqf by deed, which means properties officially declared as Waqf through legal documents.

The bench also made it clear that it would not consider any request to stop the older 1995 Waqf law on that day.

Kapil Sibal also argued that the new act violates Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. These articles guarantee equality, freedom of religion, and rights of religious denominations.

Sibal said, “Earlier statutes preserved the character of the protected monument; the new act takes away the same by encroaching upon the rights of minorities.” The case is still being heard by the Supreme Court.

You might also be interested in: Paresh Rawal quits Hera Pheri 3 over 25 Cr fee; Akshay Kumar to take legal action