The Union government has filed an affidavit on Friday before the Supreme Court urging the dismissal of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. This comes after the Supreme Court granted the Union seven days to file a reply to the pleas filed against the Waqf Amendment Act.
The affidavit filed through its Ministry of Minority Affairs argued that the amendments are only for the regulation of the secular aspect regarding the management of the properties, hence, there was no violation of the religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The government asserted that the Amendment Act squarely falls within the permissible regulatory power of the State, hence the law is a valid and lawful exercise of legislative power.
The 1,332-page preliminary counter affidavit emphasized that the Waqf Act, 1995 already recognized waqfs, charitable endowments under Islamic law, as a legitimate statutory dedication of property, and this recognition, it claimed, “remains unchanged,” continuing to safeguard “the religious rights of a Muslim individual or a community in general.”
“The secular provisions of proving such a dedication, and the management of such properties including preventing their waste or misuse are permissible under the constitutional framework,” the affidavit notes.
Further clarifying the intent behind the Act, the affidavit insists that it deals only with secular matters such as “record management, procedural reforms, and administrative structure” and carefully distances itself from involvement in “any matters of ritual, prayer, or fundamental Islamic obligations.”
“It is submitted that therefore the Act, by confining itself to non-essential practices, steers well clear of infringing the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution,” they added.
On the omission of Waqf by user, the government stated that a ‘false narrative’ is being spread, suggesting the omission will affect centuries-old waqf lands without specific deeds, and clarified that the removal of ‘waqf-by-user’ does not impact already registered waqf properties.
“It is submitted that despite the existence of the concept of ‘waqf by user’, the requirement of registration or self-declarations before the Court were made mandatory in order to ensure that the regulatory provisions of the enactments achieve the intended objectives. It is submitted that therefore, there has been a clear and mandatory legislative regime, which has sought to enforce and implement registration requirements on all kinds of waqfs since at least 1923,” reads the affidavit filed by Shersha C Saidik Mohiddin, Joint Secretary, the Ministry of Minority Affairs.
The government argued that the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards is justified, arguing these bodies are not religious in function, the Central Waqf Council serves only an advisory role without control over specific waqf lands, and the State Waqf Boards exercise regulatory powers in a secular capacity.
The Centre also declared that the changes will not reduce Muslim representation in these bodies, stating that even if all ex-officio members are non-Muslims, the maximum number of non-Muslims would be 4 out of 22 members in the Central Waqf Council and 3 out of 11 members in the State Waqf Boards, thereby ensuring that Muslims remain in the majority.
Responding to the Court’s question about whether Muslims could be included in Hindu boards,the Centre also drew a distinction between Waqf Boards and bodies handling Hindu religious endowments, calling “waqf is a wider and ever-evolving concept” compared to religious endowments.
It added that not all states have specific laws for Hindu endowments; many are governed by general trust laws.
Since Waqf Boards sometimes have jurisdiction over properties owned by non-Muslims, the Centre said including non-Muslims helps maintain “the constitutional equities on both sides.”
The Centre explained the rationale for allowing a government officer to decide whether Waqf land encroaches upon government land, stating that “repeated and documented instances across the country” have shown where Waqf Boards claimed title over government land, public utilities, and protected monuments without proper deeds, surveys, or adjudication. The Centre pointed out that these claims were based solely on “the Board’s unilateral records,” and included “waqf claims over Collector’s offices, government schools, ASI-protected heritage sites, and land vested in State or municipal authorities.”
The government pointed out the misuse of waqf provisions, citing cases where both private and government properties were encroached upon under false waqf claims. The Centre told the court that 18,29,163.896 acres of waqf land were created from the pre-Mughal period to post-Independence. However, it revealed that 20,92,072.536 acres of waqf land were added after 2013 alone.
Regarding the proviso that trusts created by Muslim individuals will not be governed by the Waqf Act, the Centre stated that this is a principle established by the Supreme Court in several judgments.
The Centre clarified that the amendment simply allows a Muslim person to choose the secular general framework to create a trust. In response to the Court’s concern about the proviso overriding judgments, the Centre explained that it is “only a clarificatory provision.”
They further emphasised that “the Amendment Act reaffirms that identification, classification, and regulation of waqf property must be subject to legal standards and judicial oversight.”
It added that the legislative design of the Act ensures “no person is denied access to courts,” and that decisions related to property rights, religious freedom, and public charity will be made within “the bounds of fairness and legality,” stating these changes will“bring judicial accountability, transparency, and fairness.”
The union government also urged the Supreme Court not to pass any interim order staying the provisions of the Act, emphasizing that “every law enacted by the Parliament is presumed to be constitutional.”
Earlier, while hearing petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, the Supreme Court on Wednesday proposed to pass an interim order directing that properties declared as Waqfs by courts shall not be de-notified during the proceedings, the proviso allowing Waqf properties to be excluded during a Collector’s inquiry into government ownership shall not be enforced, and all members of Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, except ex-officio members, must be Muslims.
Later, the Union government told the Supreme Court that certain key provisions of the new waqf law, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards and provisions on de-notifying properties declared as waqf by courts, will not be acted upon for the time being.
 Act, 2025. This comes after the Supreme Court granted the Union seven days to file a reply to the pleas filed against the Waqf Amendment Act.){kind=link}