Supreme Court Hears Waqf Law Challenge: Centre Asserts Parliamentary Laws Are Presumed Constitutionally Valid
In an ongoing legal dispute over the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Central Government has strongly defended the constitutional validity of the law before the Supreme Court. On April 17, during a previous hearing, the Centre gave an undertaking to the apex court that it would not de-notify any Waqf properties—including those under individual or institutional user claims—nor would it make any appointments to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards until May 5. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna is scheduled to hear the matter further on May 5 to consider the petitioners’ request for an interim order.
In a detailed preliminary counter affidavit spanning 1,332 pages, the Centre has requested the Supreme Court to dismiss the batch of petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The government argued that laws enacted by Parliament carry a presumption of constitutionality, and therefore, cannot be stayed either wholly or partially unless there is a clear and compelling reason to do so.
Government Defends Amendments Amid Allegations of Misuse
The affidavit, filed by Shersha C Sheikh Mohiddin, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Minority Affairs, states that the creation of Waqfs in India spans several historical periods—from before the Mughal era to pre- and post-independence times—and currently includes approximately 18,29,163.896 acres of land. However, the government highlighted what it described as an “alarming” increase of over 20 lakh hectares (precisely 20,92,072.536 hectares) of land designated as Waqf since 2013. This, it claims, raises serious concerns about misuse of earlier provisions that may have led to unauthorized encroachments on both private and government properties.
‘Laws Passed by Parliament Are Constitutionally Presumed Valid’
The Centre emphasized a settled legal principle: constitutional courts do not ordinarily stay statutory provisions during the pendency of legal challenges. “It is a well-established position in law that there is a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament,” the affidavit noted. The government contended that granting an interim stay—without fully evaluating the legal and social consequences—would be unwarranted, especially when the law in question has not yet been conclusively declared unconstitutional.
It further cautioned that an unnecessary or premature stay order might adversely impact not only the functioning of Waqf institutions but also members of the Muslim community who benefit from these religious trusts. The affidavit stated that the petitions falsely claim that the amended Act infringes upon fundamental rights, particularly the right to religious freedom. It maintained that such a claim is unfounded and that the law must instead be examined through the constitutional lenses of legislative competence and fundamental rights, as provided under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Amendments Based on Thorough Legislative Review
The Centre clarified that the amendments to the Waqf Act were the outcome of a comprehensive and data-driven review by a parliamentary committee composed of members from multiple political parties. The objective of the reform, it said, was to ensure better transparency, accountability, and integrity in the administration of Waqf properties across India.
“The Parliament has acted well within its constitutional authority,” the affidavit reads, “to regulate religious endowments in a manner that upholds both public trust and religious autonomy.” The government firmly asserted that the legislation is a valid expression of Parliament’s legislative power and represents a responsible effort to address long-standing administrative challenges in the Waqf system.
“In a constitutional democracy, it is not acceptable to invalidate or obstruct a law that has been duly passed by the legislature without substantial legal justification,” the affidavit concluded.
