NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that no individual or entity has the right to claim ownership over government land, even if such land has long been used for religious or charitable purposes and classified as Waqf by user.
Representing the Union government, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued before a bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih that the government retains the authority to reclaim such properties. "Nobody has the right over government land," Mehta stated, adding, "There is a Supreme Court judgment which says the government can save the property if it belongs to the government and has been declared as waqf."
The Centre’s assertion came in response to a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Mehta began his submissions by pointing out that no directly affected parties had filed the petitions, and said, “It is nobody's case that Parliament does not have the competence to pass this legislation.”
He also dismissed concerns over the power given to government officers to decide the status of waqf properties, saying, “This is not just misleading but a false argument.”
The Supreme Court bench has sought the Centre’s detailed response on whether an officer above the rank of district collector can be empowered to determine if a waqf property is actually government land.
In its written submissions, the Centre defended the 2025 legislation, arguing that waqf is inherently a secular construct and the new law merely seeks to regulate the secular administration of waqf while safeguarding religious freedom. “It is a settled position in law that constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision, either directly or indirectly, and will decide the matter finally. There is a presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws made by Parliament,” the note said.
The court had also highlighted this principle on Tuesday. “There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case,” Chief Justice Gavai said, addressing the arguments led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of the petitioners.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which received Presidential assent on April 5, was passed by the Lok Sabha with 288 votes in favour and 232 against, and by the Rajya Sabha with 128 members supporting it and 95 opposing.
The Centre urged the Court to limit its examination to three key issues: the power to denotify waqf properties—whether by user, deed or court order; the composition of waqf boards and councils (where petitioners argue only Muslims should hold positions other than ex-officio posts); and the provision that a waqf designation would not stand if a collector finds the land belongs to the government.
Strong, glaring case needed to stay waqf law: SC
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court told petitioners that interim relief against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, could only be granted if they made out a “strong and glaring” case. “There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case,” CJI B R Gavai said as senior advocate Kapil Sibal began his submissions.
Sibal argued that the 2025 law enables executive takeover of waqf properties, undermines judicial oversight, and violates constitutional principles. He pointed to the reduction of Muslim representation on the Central Waqf Council and the shift from elected to nominated members, calling it a blow to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
He also contended that the amended law allows waqf status to be stripped by executive action without judicial remedy and drew comparisons with the exclusive faith-based composition of Hindu and Sikh religious boards.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi challenged the new requirement that only someone practising Islam for five years can create a waqf and criticised Section 3(C), which blocks legal remedies once a property is declared non-waqf.
Another senior counsel, Rajeev Dhavan, said the law attacks both secularism and the cultural autonomy of minorities.
Representing the Union government, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued before a bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih that the government retains the authority to reclaim such properties. "Nobody has the right over government land," Mehta stated, adding, "There is a Supreme Court judgment which says the government can save the property if it belongs to the government and has been declared as waqf."
The Centre’s assertion came in response to a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Mehta began his submissions by pointing out that no directly affected parties had filed the petitions, and said, “It is nobody's case that Parliament does not have the competence to pass this legislation.”
He also dismissed concerns over the power given to government officers to decide the status of waqf properties, saying, “This is not just misleading but a false argument.”
The Supreme Court bench has sought the Centre’s detailed response on whether an officer above the rank of district collector can be empowered to determine if a waqf property is actually government land.
In its written submissions, the Centre defended the 2025 legislation, arguing that waqf is inherently a secular construct and the new law merely seeks to regulate the secular administration of waqf while safeguarding religious freedom. “It is a settled position in law that constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision, either directly or indirectly, and will decide the matter finally. There is a presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws made by Parliament,” the note said.
The court had also highlighted this principle on Tuesday. “There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case,” Chief Justice Gavai said, addressing the arguments led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of the petitioners.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which received Presidential assent on April 5, was passed by the Lok Sabha with 288 votes in favour and 232 against, and by the Rajya Sabha with 128 members supporting it and 95 opposing.
The Centre urged the Court to limit its examination to three key issues: the power to denotify waqf properties—whether by user, deed or court order; the composition of waqf boards and councils (where petitioners argue only Muslims should hold positions other than ex-officio posts); and the provision that a waqf designation would not stand if a collector finds the land belongs to the government.
Strong, glaring case needed to stay waqf law: SC
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court told petitioners that interim relief against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, could only be granted if they made out a “strong and glaring” case. “There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case,” CJI B R Gavai said as senior advocate Kapil Sibal began his submissions.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the court to confine the proceedings to three key issues previously flagged by the bench:
- Power to denotify waqf properties declared by courts, waqf by user, or waqf by deed
- Composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council
- Provision allowing the collector to declare a waqf property as government land, thereby denying it waqf status
Sibal argued that the 2025 law enables executive takeover of waqf properties, undermines judicial oversight, and violates constitutional principles. He pointed to the reduction of Muslim representation on the Central Waqf Council and the shift from elected to nominated members, calling it a blow to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
He also contended that the amended law allows waqf status to be stripped by executive action without judicial remedy and drew comparisons with the exclusive faith-based composition of Hindu and Sikh religious boards.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi challenged the new requirement that only someone practising Islam for five years can create a waqf and criticised Section 3(C), which blocks legal remedies once a property is declared non-waqf.
Another senior counsel, Rajeev Dhavan, said the law attacks both secularism and the cultural autonomy of minorities.
You may also like
What Is Corporate NPS? A Smarter Retirement Plan for Employees with Over ₹2 Lakh in Tax Benefits
Delhi HC hears Celebi's claims of unfair security clearance revocation, hearing to continue on Thursday
Bengaluru women secretly filmed on Namma Metro trains: Instagram page sparks outrage, police register FIR and launch probe
Indian Navy inducts historic ship 'Kaundinya' built using ancient techniques
Pakistan's attempt to hoodwink world doomed to fail: India on Islamabad's allegations
