Waqf (Amendment) Act: Won't appoint non-Muslims to council, boards: Govt tells Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Centre on Thursday assured the Supreme Court that certain key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 - inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and waqf boards and provisions on denotifying properties declared as waqf by courts - will not be acted upon for the time being.

Representing the Centre, solicitor general Tushar Mehta gave the assurance to a three-member bench headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna.

The court asked the Centre to file its response within seven days to petitions challenging the Act. The petitioners have been given five days to file their rejoinder to the Centre's response. The hearing will resume on May 5.


Recording the Centre's assurance, the bench noted in its order that "during the course of the hearing, solicitor general states that the respondents would like to file a short reply within seven days and assured that till the next date, no appointment shall take place to boards and council under the 2025 Act. He also assures that waqfs, including waqf by user, already declared by notification or gazetted, their status shall not be changed".

SC made it clear that "the hearing on the next date will only be for directions and interim orders, if any". The court changed the cause title of the case to 'In Re: Waqf Amendment Act'.

In a nutshell, Mehta submitted that non-Muslims won't be appointed to Central Waqf Council and state waqf boards till the next hearing. He also assured the bench that waqfs, including waqf by user, whether declared by way of notification or registration, will not be denotified till the next date of hearing.

At the beginning of the hearing, Mehta said staying a legislation at the admission stage (of a plea) is an "extraordinary measure" and should not be done based on a mere tentative reading of the provisions. "We have received lakhs and lakhs of representations which contributed to some of these amendments. Villages were taken as waqfs. Private properties were taken as waqfs. This affects a large number of innocent people," Mehta argued.

Urging SC to refrain from staying any of the provisions of the Act, Mehta argued the court would be taking a "serious and harsh step by staying directly or indirectly statutory provisions without proper assistance". He requested the bench to grant a week's time to produce relevant materials.

In response, the CJI verbally remarked "we have a particular situation. We pointed out certain infirmities. We also said there are certain positive things (about the Act). But we don't want the situation prevailing today to change so drastically that it affects the rights of the parties".

The CJI said: "There is a thumb rule that courts won't stay legislations ordinarily. But there is another thumb rule, when the petition is pending before the court, the situation which is prevailing should not change so that the rights of persons are not affected."

On Wednesday, the bench had indicated three concerns - the validity of waqf by user properties, declared earlier by court decrees, may now become void; having non-Muslims as majority members in council; and pending enquiry by the collector on disputed property, the declaration that the same will not be treated as waqf property. CJI Khanna had verbally remarked "denotifying waqf by user will have huge consequences". He added certain provisions of the Act could have grave ramifications. Hence, he said, the bench would consider an interim order.