Supreme Court's big decision on Waqf law: Government will give reply in 7 days, no new appointment in Waqf Board, read important points

New Delhi, 17 April 2025: The ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court regarding the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 has garnered discussion across the country. In the hearing held on 16 and 17 April 2025, the court has directed the central government to file a reply within seven days. Also, there will be no new appointment in the Waqf Board and Central Waqf Council (Waqf Board Appointments) till further orders. The court also proposed to keep the status quo of Waqf by User properties, on which the Center sought more time. This matter is also related to communal tension and Bengal violence. Let us understand the facts of this case, the comments of the Supreme Court, and the implications in detail. 

Supreme Court hearing: Key points

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Vishwanathan, heard 73 petitions. These petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025. The court made several important observations:

1. Status quo on Waqf by user: The court said that Waqf by user or Waqf properties declared by the court will not be de-notified. CJI Khanna remarked, "Abolishing Waqf by user can bring serious consequences. Many old mosques do not have sale documents."
2. Ban on appointments: The court proposed that there will be a ban on new appointments in the Waqf Board and Central Waqf Council. However, ex-officio members can be appointed from any religion, but other members will be Muslims only.
3. Seven days to the Center: The court sought a response from the central government on three key issues—Waqf by user, appointment of non-Muslim members, and the rights of the collector. The hearing will resume on May 5, 2025.
4. Concern over Bengal violence: CJI Khanna described the violence in Bengal in protest against the Waqf law as "extremely disturbing" and said that such incidents will not be tolerated.

Government's stand and petitions

The central government has described the Waqf law as increasing transparency and accountability. Union Minister Kiren Rijiju said that this law does not target any community, but improves the management of Waqf properties. Seven BJP-ruled states—Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh—have filed intervention petitions in the Supreme Court supporting the law. On the other hand, 

several petitioners, including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, and Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, called the law a violation of the fundamental rights of the Muslim community. They claim that the law abolishes the autonomy of the Waqf Board and the appointment of non-Muslim members is an attack on religious freedom.

Key points of contention

The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, which was approved by President Draupadi Murmu on April 5, 2025, brings several changes. It removes the concept of Waqf by user, empowers the Collector to change the status of Waqf properties, and allows the appointment of non-Muslim members to the Waqf Board. The petitioners say that these provisions violate Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court asked the Center, "Can Muslim members be included in a Hindu religious trust?" To this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta replied that if a Muslim wants to create a Waqf, he can form a trust.

Social and political impact

There were protests across the country against the Waqf Act, especially in Murshidabad, West Bengal, where three people died in the violence. The court took a tough stand on these incidents and said that the legal process should be awaited. #WaqfAct and #SupremeCourt are trending on social media, where people are welcoming the court's decision, but some called the ban on appointments inadequate.

Future direction

The Supreme Court has not yet issued any interim order, but its stance on Waqf by user and violence shows the seriousness of the matter. After the Centre's response, the court will decide whether to stay some provisions of the law. This matter is important not only for the management of Waqf properties, but also for religious freedom and constitutional rights.

Conclusion

This decision of the Supreme Court is an important milestone in the ongoing dispute over the Waqf law. The Centre will have to respond in seven days, and till then there will be no new appointment in the Waqf Board. The court's comment on the status quo of Waqf by-user properties and violence has made this matter more sensitive. Will the Centre be able to strengthen its position, or will the court stay this law? This will be clear in the hearing on May 5.