CJI Gavai makes it clear that the court will not hear any petitions challenging the Waqf Act 1995 and that the proceedings will be restricted to the 2025 amendments.

Mr. Mehta concludes his submissions on behalf of the Union government.

Mr. Mehta submits that no tribal individuals have filed petitions challenging the 2025 Act. Responding to Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi’s claim to the contrary, Mr. Mehta points out that there are also petitions supporting the law.

He further argues that Muslim tribals are being victimised. “There may be differing points of view,” he says, “but that cannot be a ground to stay the operation of a duly enacted law.”

Mr. Mehta submits that the dedication of land as waqf is permanent and irreversible. Therefore, land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes cannot be dedicated as waqf, he argues.

He also refers to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) report to point out that tribal Muslims have a distinct cultural identity. This, he submits, is a valid ground to bar the dedication of their land as waqf.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, commences his arguments.

He submits that there is no ground for staying a “validly enacted statute” by the competent legislature.

“The very fact that the court has to hear the plea for interim stay for three days shows there is nothing ex facie unconstitutional with the law”, the law officer contends.

Countering the Supreme Court’s observation that a parliamentary statute like the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 enjoys a presumption of constitutionality, petitioners on Tuesday termed the new law a “creeping acquisition” of waqf properties owned by the Muslim community, the largest religious minority group in India.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard petitioners for a full day on their plea for an interim order to stay the implementation of the 2025 Act, which came into force on April 8.

The amendments expand government control over waqf properties at the cost of the autonomy of the Muslim community to manage them. On April 17, the Court recorded the Centre’s assurance that waqf properties, including “waqf by user”, will not be de-notified and appointments will not be made to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, based on provisions of the new law till May 5, the next hearing. The Centre thus preempted a judicial order which appeared possible during the hearing. The Court had raised concerns about the provisions in the new law which discontinued the category of waqf by user, made non-Muslims eligible for appointment in the council/waqf boards, and gave the state unilateral power to take over the control of waqf properties in the event of a dispute, pending its final resolution