The Supreme Court on Friday declined to entertain a series of fresh petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, observing that “everybody wants his name to be in the newspapers.”
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih made it clear that it will proceed only with the limited set of petitions already selected for consideration and listed for hearing on May 20.
As soon as a new petition came up for hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, objected to the growing number of challenges to the Act, stating, “There can’t be an endless filing of pleas challenging the Act.”
The petitioner’s counsel responded that his plea had been filed on April 8 and the registry defects were cured on April 15, but the matter was still not listed. CJI Gavai remarked, “Everybody wants his name to be in the newspapers,” as the bench dismissed the plea.
Another similar petition met the same fate with a brief order: “Dismissed.” When the petitioner sought permission to intervene in the ongoing matters, the CJI responded, “We already have too many intervenors.”
Earlier, on April 17, the top court had decided to hear only five representative petitions out of all those filed challenging the 2025 amendment. The issues in focus include:
- Denotification Powers: Whether the government can denotify waqf properties, especially those declared waqf by courts, by user, or through deed.
- Board Composition: The petitioners contend that only Muslims, except ex-officio members, should be part of the Central Waqf Council and state waqf boards.
- Land Inquiry Clause: A provision in the amended Act permits the collector to conduct inquiries to determine whether waqf-listed properties are actually government land.
On April 17, the Centre had assured the court that it would not denotify any waqf properties, including “waqf by user,” nor make appointments to the Waqf Council and boards till May 5. The government reiterated this stand during the latest hearing on May 15, resisting the court’s proposal to pass an interim stay order on the controversial provisions.
Meanwhile, the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs has submitted a voluminous preliminary affidavit running over 1,300 pages defending the constitutionality of the amended law and opposing any blanket stay on its implementation.
The Supreme Court will resume hearing arguments on May 20, focusing on interim directions concerning the identified key issues.
