The CJI said he ideally wanted Justice Gavai’s Bench to have some time to go through the pleadings and case records before the hearing. File
| Photo Credit: PTI
The Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, on Monday (May 5, 2025) bowed out of the Waqf law case, with four working days left in his tenure ahead of retirement on May 13, saying he did not want to reserve or pass any interim orders.
Chief Justice Khanna said the course of the litigation challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, would be steered by his successor and Chief Justice of India designate, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Also Read: Waqf Amendment Act SC hearing updates: Pleas listed before Justice Gavai-led Bench on May 15
The CJI, accompanied by Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, listed the case on May 15, two days after his retirement.
The listing would also align the challenge to the Waqf law as one of the major cases to come up before the new Chief Justice of India. Justice Gavai assumes office as top judge on May 14 for a six-month tenure till November.
On April 17, the last crucial day of hearing in the case, the Chief Justice’s Bench had avoided passing an interim order to stay the implementation of the 2025 amendments.
Instead, it had to rest content with recording the Government’s statement that “till the next date of hearing [May 5. 2025], no Waqf, including a Waqf by user, whether declared by way of notification or by way of registration, shall be de-notified, nor will their character or status be changed”.
Similarly, the Government had assured that appointments of non-Muslims would not be made to the Central Waqf Council or the State Waqf Boards under the 2025 Act.
The court had listed the case on May 5 for a “preliminary hearing” and interim orders, if required.
However, as soon as the Bench assembled post-lunch, the CJI said he did not want to hear and reserve arguments for an interim stay of the 2025 Act. He said both sides had raised substantial arguments on law, especially regarding the registration of Waqfs, which needed to be heard elaborately. Unfortunately, he did not have time left in his tenure.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, urged the CJI to list the case before Justice Gavai on Wednesday (April 30, 2025) or Thursday (May 1, 2025) this week. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union Government, raised no objection. The CJI said he ideally wanted Justice Gavai’s Bench to have some time to go through the pleadings and case records before the hearing. The case was finally listed for next week, on Thursday (May 1, 2025).
The petitioners have argued that the 2025 amendments infringed upon and prejudiced the rights of Muslims across the country. The amendments fundamentally altered the governance, creation, and protection of Waqf properties — Islamic endowments dedicated perpetually to Allah for religious and charitable purposes. The enhanced role of the state in the Waqf administration impinged on the right of the Muslim community to manage its institutions.
The petitions highlighted that the amendments had omitted the concept of waqf-by-user affirmed by the Supreme Court itself as a property which would attain the status of Waqf through long-standing religious use. Further, an amendment to the composition of the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council has mandated the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf administrative bodies.
In its counter, the Centre said the Waqf law had been misused, especially after 2013, for land-grabbing. The “phenomenal” increase in Waqf property and serious complaints of encroachments had convinced Parliament to enact the will of the people through a new law.
The Government has said the removal of the concept of ‘Waqf-by-user’ in the 2025 amendments did not deprive a Muslim of his right to create a Waqf. The provisions had only insisted on Waqf properties, which had anyway been in vogue for nearly a century. Only those who evaded registration to avoid accountability under a statutory regime need to be worried about the amendments, the Centre said.
The Government has maintained that enabling a minority of non-Muslims to be members of the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards did not fall foul of the religious rights of Muslims. The Centre argued that Article 26 of the Constitution did not confer an “absolute right” to administer a property in accordance with the tenets of religion.
The petitioners had filed rejoinder affidavits against the Government’s response while insisting on a order of interim stay on May 5.
They argued that a ‘presumption of constitutionality’ in favour of a Parliamentary law did not prevent the apex court from issuing an interim order of stay. That too, they contended, when the law in question would “result in manifest injustice and illegal deprivation of fundamental rights of persons based on their religious identity”.
Published – May 05, 2025 04:26 pm IST
