73 petitions challenging the validity of the Cuff Amendment Act-2025 are under hearing in the Supreme Court. In the debate, several petitioners including All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MP Mohammad Javed reached the court. Hearing Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.K. V. Vishwanathan is happening in front of a three -member bench. In the Waqf Board, he asked a big question to the Supreme Court regarding the case of non-Muslims. The court asked the government, is it ready to allow Muslims to be part of Hindu religious trusts? Before knowing the big things of the ongoing hearing in the court, let’s take a look at the basis of petitions.
What is the basis of petitions?
The petitioners claim that the new Waqf law violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which gives the right to management of religious affairs. Advocates Kapil Sibal and Rajiv Dhawan argued in the court that Waqf is an essential and integral part of Islam and the government cannot interfere with it.
Sibal said that this act is not only an attack on religious freedom but is the ‘takeover’ of the government on the private properties of Muslims. He said that many sections of the law, especially sections 3 (R), 3 (A), 3 (C), 3 (E), 9, 14 and 36 are unconstitutional and this is being denied Muslims of religious, social and property related rights.
What did the court say?
CJI Sanjeev Khanna clarified that it would not be possible to listen to all the petitioners, so only the selected lawyers will argue and no argument will be repeated. During the hearing, the court underlined the secular nature of Article 26 and said that it applies equally to all communities. At the same time, Justice Vishwanathan clarified that property can be secular, his administration can be religious. He advised to avoid repeating the argument repeatedly.
The CJI said, we are not saying that there is a ban in the Supreme Court in hearing the petitions against the law and giving the verdict. Justice Khanna said that we want to ask both sides to consider two aspects. First- Should it be considered or should it be handed over to the High Court? Second- briefly tell what are really insisting and what arguments are to be made. Second is that we can help some extent to decide on the issue first.
Central government side
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while favoring the government, said that the purpose of the Waqf law is only the regulation of the property, not religious intervention. He said that the government can act as a trustee and the collector has been given the right to take decisions so that property disputes can be resolved soon.
Mehta also said that the central government has been enrolling the members of the Waqf Board from 1995 to 2013. He said that the Waqf Tribunal is a judicial body and the right to judicial review remains.
Kapil Sibal’s major argument
- Section 3 (R): State intervention in the definition of Waqf unconstitutional
- Section 3 (A) (2): Interfering in women’s property rights
- Section 3 (C): Do not consider government property as self
- Section 14: Centralization of power from nomination in board
- Section 36: Religious use of property is possible without registration
- Sections 7 (A) and 61: ambiguity in judicial processes
What is the demand of the petitioners?
The petitioners have demanded from the Supreme Court that the Waqf Amendment Act should be banned till the final decision comes. At the same time, the central government says that amendments are necessary for transparency and administrative smoothness.