AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi called the Waqf Act ‘unconstitutional’ after the Supreme Court on Thursday recorded the Centre’s request for additional time to file a response in the matter related to the Waqf Act.
Speaking to the media, Owaisi said, “We consider this Act unconstitutional. The Court has said that the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Council will not be constituted, and ‘Waqf by user’ cannot be deleted.”
Calling the Act unconstitutional, Owaisi said that, “during the deliberations of the JPC, I gave a report opposing all amendments proposed by the government, and during the debate on the bill, I called the bill unconstitutional. Our legal battle against this Act will continue.”
The court took note of the Solicitor General’s assurance that no appointments to the Waqf Board or Council will be made until the next hearing. The court also stated that existing Waqf properties, including those registered by the user or declared through notification, will not be identified.
The Solicitor General said that the Waqf Act is a considered piece of legislation and that the Centre has received a large number of representations regarding the classification of land as Waqf. He added that staying the entire Act would be a severe step and sought one week to submit a reply.
The Supreme Court stated that it had earlier noted some aspects of the legislation as positive and reiterated that there can be no complete stay of the Act at this stage. The court also said that it does not want the current status to be altered while the matter is under its consideration.
The bench reiterated that the objective is to maintain the existing situation without changes while the matter remains under judicial review.
Earlier on Wednesday, following a two-hour-long hearing, the apex court indicated that it may stay certain key provisions of the Act, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards, powers of Collectors on deciding disputes over Waqf properties and provisions on de-notifying properties declared as Waqf by courts.
The top court was about to dictate the order, but Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, and other counsels who were appearing for parties defending the Act said they should be heard before passing the interim order. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan is hearing the case.
During the hearing yesterday, the bench stated that it was considering issuing an interim order that would balance the equities.
“We will say that whichever properties have been declared by the court to be Waqf or held to be Waqf will not be de-notified as Waqfs or be treated as non-Waqf properties, whether they are by Waqf-by-user or waqf-by-declaration or otherwise… declared by courts or otherwise also,” the bench had said.
“We will say that whichever properties have been declared by the court to be Waqf or held to be Waqf will not be de-notified as Waqfs or be treated as non-Waqf properties, whether they are by Waqf-by-user or waqf-by-declaration or otherwise… declared by courts or otherwise also,” the bench had said.
“Second, Collector can continue with proceedings, but the proviso will not be given effect to. If he wants, he can move an application before this court, and we can modify it. Third, as far as the constitution of the Board and Council is concerned, ex officio members can be appointed, regardless of their faith, but the other members should be Muslims,” the CJI had added.
The CJI had observed that “the government cannot rewrite history” through the changes brought about by the amendments to the Waqf law, while referring to the scope under the new Act to de-notify properties declared as Waqf long ago.
On the issue of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards and Councils, the bench had said that the nearest example is the Hindu Charitable Endowments Act.
“Whenever it comes to Hindu endowments, it would be Hindus who would be governing,” Justice Viswanathan had said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, had stated that a Collector is the officer designated to decide whether a property is Waqf or not; if there is a dispute, this person, being part of the government, is thus a judge in their own cause.
“This is per se unconstitutional. This also states that the property will not be a Waqf until the officer makes a decision. Only Muslims had been part of the Waqf council and Boards, but now, after the amendment, even Hindus can be a part of it,” he had contended.
“It is a parliamentary usurpation of the faith of 200 million persons,” Sibal had added.
Several petitions were filed in the apex court challenging the Act, contending that it was discriminatory towards the Muslim community and violated their fundamental rights.
President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, on April 5, following its passage by Parliament after heated debates in both Houses. (ANI)
