The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. A bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna has sought an answer from the central government on the issue of ‘Waqf by user’. The Supreme Court said that the violence happening during the protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is very disturbing. The lawyers of the Muslim side in their arguments demanded the cancellation of this from the court, citing the principles of fundamental rights, religious freedom and equality of the Constitution. Many veterans including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi argued in the court on behalf of the Muslim side. The Supreme Court will still hear this issue.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, ‘The court is currently hearing the law which has been brought after extensive discussion and consultation.

Highlights

• Kapil Sibal said that the rights of 200 million people can be grabbed on the basis of this.
• Sibal said that there was no limit before. Many of these Waqf properties were encroached.
• Senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan said that this law is against the internal system of Islam religion.
• Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while arguing in the Supreme Court, said that 4 out of 8 lakhs are Waqf, which are by the user. He expressed concern that these properties have been threatened after the amendments made in the Waqf Act.
• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, ‘The court is currently hearing the law which has been brought after extensive discussion and consultation.
• CJI Sanjeev Khanna said that one thing that is going to be very upset is the violence happening here. If the matter is pending here, it should not happen.
• The Supreme Court also asked sharp questions to the central government. The CJI told SG Tushar Mehta, why Waqf Bai user was removed. The Supreme Court said that there will be no sales deeds in most mosques of 14,15th century. Most of the mosques will be Waqf Bai users.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, while objected to the Waqf Amendment Act, said that it violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which gives religious communities the freedom of management of its religious affairs. He raised the following points in his argument:

Violation of religious freedom: Sibal questioned how the government can decide that Waqf can only create those who have been following Islam for the last five years? It violates the right to religious freedom.
Islamic succession law: He argued that succession in Islam is found after death, but this law intervenes before that, which is unfair.
Recognition of Waqf Property: Citing Section 3 (C) of the Act, Sibal said that under this, government property will not be recognized as Waqf, which was already declared Waqf. This is an attempt to change the current situation of Waqf.
Violation of constitutional provisions: Citing Articles 25 and 26, he said that the Waqf Amendment Act violates these provisions of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to religious freedom and equality.

The hearing is going on in the Supreme Court on the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. So far more than 72 petitions have been filed in this case, some of which are prominent petitioners.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also argued. He said that we have heard that the land of Parliament has also been done. At the same time, CJI Khanna replied, “We are not saying that all the Waqfs are wrongly registered. But there are some concerns. He suggested that the hearing of the case can be handed over to the High Court. On Sibal’s arguments, CJI said,” How many such cases will happen? ” I think the interpretation is in your favor. If a property was declared Waqf before declaring an ancient monument, it would not make any difference. “

AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi: Owaisi has challenged the Act on the basis that it eliminates the security given to Waqf under Article 26 of the Constitution.
All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB): The board has described the Act as a shock to the religious identity and practices of Muslim minorities.
Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind: The organization has sought interim relief to postpone the implementation of the Act.
DMK: The party has described the Act as a violation of the fundamental rights of about 5 million Muslims in Tamil Nadu and the fundamental rights of 200 million Muslims in other parts of the country.
Congress MP Mohammad Javed: Javed has described the Act as discriminating against the Muslim community.