News Brief
Multiple Petitions Challenging Waqf Amendment Act Filed In Supreme Court, CJI Khanna To Decide On Urgent Hearing
The Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court witnessed a bunch of urgent mentions seeking immediate listing of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, which received Presidential assent on 5 April following its passage through Parliament the previous day.
LiveLaw reported that Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Maulana Arshad Madani—President of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind sought urgent listing before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna.
However, the CJI queried the need for oral mentioning, saying, "All the urgent matters, will be placed before me in the afternoon....why are you mentioning when we have a system in place?"
When Sibal stated that a letter seeking urgent listing had already been sent, CJI responded, "It will be placed before me in the afternoon, I will do the needful."
In a similar move, Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the petition filed by Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi. The Kerala-based Sunni scholars’ body, Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema, also filed a writ petition on 6 April.
Three other challenges were already pending before the Act received Presidential assent, filed by AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, and the NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights.
It seeks an interim order to defer the notification under Section 1(2), citing imminent threats to historical waqf properties, particularly those established through oral dedication or lacking formal deeds.
Strong objection is taken to the removal of the concept of “waqf by user,” a traditional principle upheld in the Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid judgment.
The petition also challenges Sections 3D and 3E, which invalidate waqf declarations over ASI-protected monuments and prohibit creation of waqf over Scheduled Tribes' properties.
Further, it objects to changes in the composition of the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, alleging the dilution of Muslim-majority requirements violates the community's right to manage its own religious affairs.
