New Delhi, Apr 17 (UNI) In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued an interim order, directing status quo in relation to the functionality of the Waqf Boards till the next hearing on May 5.
A three-judge Bench of the top court, led by Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna recorded the Centre’s assurance that no fresh appointments will be made to the Waqf Boards or the Central and State Waqf Councils under Sections 9 and 14 of the Act while the matter is sub-judice.
The Bench, also comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by various groups and individuals against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 passed by Parliament earlier this month.
The court made it clear that the “status quo must be maintained” in light of the wide-reaching implications of the new law.
“We do not want the position to change,” observed CJI Khanna, adding “The situation prevailing today should continue, so as to not upset the rights of parties.”
The Court directed the Union of India and Waqf Boards to file their responses within seven days, and rejoinders by petitioners within five days thereafter.
In the interim, the following directions have been passed:
- No appointments to Waqf Boards or Councils under Sections 9 and 14.
- No denotification of Waqf properties, including Waqf by user
- The situation regarding registered Waqf properties under the 1995 Act shall remain undisturbed
The matter will now be heard after the responses are received.
The Court reiterated that only five lead petitions will be heard, while all other connected matters have been disposed of.
The next date of hearing is May 5 at 2 pm.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, urged the court not to pass a “harsh step” and requested a week’s time to file a preliminary reply.
Underlining that the government was answerable to the people, he said, “Villages and villages are taken as Waqf (land). It is a considered piece of legislation… Lakhs of representations were received.”
When asked about controversial provisions overriding judicial decrees, Mehta admitted, "I don’t know why those words have come. Ignore that part."
Giving an assurance to the top court, he said, “We will not make any appointments. If any State does, it may be treated as void.”
Regarding the Waqf-by-User aspect in the new Act, Mehta said, “If Your Lordships say something about Waqf by user, it will have consequences.”

The bench was hearing writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the 2025 amendment to the Waqf Act.
The petitioners include: Mohd. Jawed (Congress MP), Asaduddin Owaisi (President, AIMIM), Amanatullah Khan (MLA, Aam Aadmi Party), Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), an NGO, Maulana Arshad Madani, head of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Samastha Kerala, Jamiathul Ulema, a prominent Muslim organisation from Kerala and Anjum Kadari, activist and legal scholar.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal raised sharp constitutional objections. He argued that the new provisions threaten the “essential and integral part of Islamic faith”, particularly those that abolish ‘waqf by user’, limit claims, and shift adjudicatory powers from courts to executive bodies.
“What is sought through Parliamentary legislation is to interfere with an essential and integral part of faith,” Sibal submitted. “If a Waqf was created 3,000 years ago, they will now ask for a deed.”
Sibal assailed several provisions, including:
Section 3(r): which retains the existing Waqf by the user only if not disputed
Section 3A(2) barring waqf-alal-aulad from denying inheritance to women
Section 3C, annulling government land declared as Waqf
Section 36, abolishing Waqf-by-user unless registered
Section 61, imposing a two-year limitation to raise Waqf claims
Section 7A, which Sibal noted may take “20 years to establish a claim”
He argued, “The phrase ‘per law’ cannot be used to take away essential religious practices. These are core aspects protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.”
The CJI weighed in on the complex implications and said, “We are told Delhi High Court is built on Waqf land. We are not saying all ‘Waqf by-User’ is wrong, but there is genuine concern.”
In a pointed remark on composition of the Waqf Boards, Justice Khanna remarked: “Say it openly! Why not have non-Muslims in Hindu endowment advisory boards then?”
The law has stirred deep concern in religious, political, and civil rights circles, with critics alleging it effectively nullifies centuries-old Waqf rights, curbs judicial oversight, and vests disproportionate power in executive hands.
In Parliament, during the debate on the new legislation, Union Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had argued that the law was aimed at streamlining property management and was not intended to interfere with religious rights.
“The provisions of the Waqf Board have nothing to do with the management of any mosque, temple, or religious site,” Rijiju clarified during the floor debate.
UNI SNG/AKK RN