The Union government filed its preliminary affidavit in the Supreme Court seeking the dismissal of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The Centre opposed a stay on any provisions of the Act, stating that it is a settled legal principle that constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision—either directly or indirectly—and would instead decide the matter conclusively, reported news agency ANI.
According to reports, the Centre argued that removing statutory protection for a Waqf-by-user does not deprive a member of the Muslim community of the ability to create a Waqf.
The affidavit further states that a “deliberate, purposeful, and intentionally misleading narrative” has been mischievously constructed to give the impression that Waqfs (including ‘Waqf-by-user’) lacking documentary evidence to support their claims would be affected.
“This is not only untrue and false but also purposefully and deliberately misleading to this court,” the Centre said.
The government clarified that for a property to be protected as a ‘Waqf-by-user’ under the proviso to Section 3(1)(r), no trust deed or documentary proof has ever been required—either under the amendment or prior to it, the Centre stated.
The only mandatory requirement for protection under the proviso is that such a ‘Waqf-by-user’ must have been registered by 8 April 2025, as registration has been a statutory requirement under Waqf laws for the past 100 years, the government said in its affidavit filed in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the amendments introduced by the government to the Waqf Act. These controversial provisions require non-Muslim representation on both the Central Waqf Council and state-level boards, and restrict donations to practicing Muslims only.
The petitioners, who have challenged the Act, argue that these rules infringe on several constitutional rights.
During the previous hearing, the court indicated that it was contemplating a temporary suspension of the law, particularly in light of violent incidents — including death in West Bengal and confrontations in Lucknow. However, this interim stay was postponed after the government requested additional time to respond.
