Needed to curb land grab: Centre defends Waqf amendments in SC
The Centre on Friday defended the Waqf (Amendment) Act-2025 before the Supreme Court, saying it was needed to curb the misuse of provisions of the Waqf law to encroach private as well as government land.
The Centre asserted that there could not be a “blanket stay” on the law as there was a presumption of constitutionality in favour of a law enacted by Parliament.
In a 1,332-page affidavit filed in response to petitions challenging the amendments, the Centre defended abolition of ‘Waqf by user’ and inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards.
Regarding abolition of ‘Waqf by user’, it said despite a regime of mandatory registration for all kinds of Waqf since 1923, individuals or organisations used to claim private and government lands as Waqf. Such claims led to deprivation of property rights to individual citizens and unauthorised claims over public properties, the Centre contended.
“Waqf by user does not deprive a Muslim person to create a Waqf. It impinges on the form by which such a dedication is to be made, which is the secular dimension of the dedication, and not the right of an individual to dedicate his or her property to God,” it contended.
“Since the secular aspects of Waqf administration may require dealing with issues concerning non-Muslims as beneficiaries, aggrieved or affected parties, adding limited non-Muslim participation was aimed at modernising governance structures,” said the Centre.
A three-judge Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna – which had on April 17 issued notice to the Centre on petitions against the Waqf (Amendment) Act-2025 — is scheduled to take up petitions against the amendments on May 5.
The Bench had deferred passing any interim orders on petitions challenging the amendments after the Centre submitted in court that it would not make any appointments to Waqf Council and Waqf Boards or de-notify existing Waqf properties.
Maintaining that the Waqf Amendment Act was only for regulating the secular aspects, it asserted there was no violation of religious freedoms.
The Centre said need for provisions allowing a government officer to decide if Waqf land encroached upon government land arose from instances, wherein the Waqf Boards had claimed title over government land, public utilities and protected monuments without deed, survey, or adjudication.
