NL Newsdesk
New Delhi, August 23: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay a Union government notification mandating the registration of all waqf properties on a centralised digital portal within six months, asking individuals and organisations to comply with the directive while the court examines the validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai clarified that the court cannot stay the June 6 notification issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs until it delivers its reserved judgment on the petitions challenging the law.
“You have to register your properties within six months as per the notification. When we pass our judgment, everything will be subject to our directions,” Chief Justice Gavai told an advocate seeking interim relief.
When counsel pressed further for a stay, pointing out that the registry had declined to list their application since the matter was already reserved, the Chief Justice firmly responded: “How can we pass an interim order when the judgment has been reserved? Sorry! You comply with the directions; we will consider all issues in our final order.”
Centralised Portal for Transparency
The notification mandates the registration of all waqf properties on the UMEED (Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development) portal within six months of its June 6 launch. According to the Centre, the platform aims to create a transparent, centralised repository of property details, including photographs and geotagged locations.
Properties not registered within the deadline may be treated as disputed and referred to a tribunal.
The petitions challenging the Act were argued over three days in May, following which the bench, also comprising Justice A.G. Masih, reserved its order on May 22. During the hearings, the court observed that maintaining an inventory of waqf properties has been a consistent feature of Indian legal frameworks for more than a century.
“From 1923 till 2025, over 100 years, various enactments have emphasised registration,” the bench noted. While the Mussalman Waqf Act of 1923 did not mandate registration, it required details of waqfs. From the Waqf Act of 1954 onwards, registration became compulsory, with a 1976 report explaining its necessity.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, argued that shifting the registration burden onto waqf custodians unfairly penalises the community for the state’s failure to conduct surveys since 1954. “It is the failure of the state to perform its duty, and because of that, a community is being punished,” he contended.
Sibal further claimed that the law violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, including property administration.
The petitioners have also challenged other provisions of the 2025 law, such as making it mandatory that only a practising Muslim of at least five years can dedicate property as waqf—a condition not imposed on other religious endowments.
Centre’s Stand
Defending the law, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said allowing “any person” to dedicate waqf property, as permitted by the 2013 amendment, was conceptually flawed. “How can waqf, an Islamic concept, be open to non-Muslims?” he asked, arguing that the 2025 amendments were aimed at enhancing transparency and preventing misuse.
Another controversial clause prohibits creating waqf on land belonging to scheduled tribes. Mehta said this safeguard was necessary to protect vulnerable communities and preserve their cultural identity, citing recommendations from a joint parliamentary committee.
However, the bench expressed doubts, questioning: “What is the nexus of disallowing waqf on tribal land? Islam is Islam. Traditions may vary, but the religion remains the same. If a waqf is created by fraud, the law can deal with it separately.”
Concerns Over Discrimination
Senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the Act discriminates against Muslims and risks erasing properties historically recognised as waqf based on oral traditions and usage. Dhavan emphasised that charity is a core pillar of Islam, while Singhvi warned that the new provisions create a “vicious circle,” where disputes could obstruct the recognition of genuine waqf properties.
Meanwhile, states supporting the Centre highlighted cases of alleged misuse, citing instances where vast tracts of land—even entire villages—were claimed as waqf property.
Awaiting Final Verdict
The petitions challenge the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 on multiple constitutional grounds, alleging violations of fundamental rights and threats to centuries-old traditions. The Centre, however, maintains that the reforms are essential to ensure accountability, transparency, and protection against encroachment.
With the judgment reserved, the apex court has directed all stakeholders to comply with the registration requirement until a final decision is delivered.
