Strong Grounds Needed to Stay Waqf Amendment Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the necessity of establishing a compelling case before granting a stay on legislation, as it heard a series of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that all statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, and interim relief would only be considered if a particularly "strong and glaring" case was made.

“There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute,” observed CJI Gavai. “For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, the presumption will prevail.”

The court adjourned the matter until Wednesday after more than three hours of arguments, during which it deliberated on whether interim relief should be granted.

The petitions before the court pertain to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025—legislation that introduced sweeping changes to the Waqf Act, 1995. The amended law, passed by Parliament on April 4 and enacted on April 8 following Presidential assent, affects 44 sections of the original statute. Key provisions include the inclusion of non-Muslims on waqf boards, restrictions on property donations to waqf, and modifications to the functioning of waqf tribunals.

A waqf is a charitable endowment in Islamic law, typically designated for religious, educational, or social welfare purposes. Each state has a waqf board, a legal authority responsible for managing such properties.

The Waqf Amendment Act has been legally contested by opposition parties, including the Indian National Congress and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), on grounds of constitutional violation.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, urged the court to confine the scope of interim relief deliberations to three central legal questions. However, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, opposed this suggestion, calling for a comprehensive judicial review of the amendments.

The Supreme Court will resume hearing on the matter on Wednesday.