KKN Gurugram Desk |  The Waqf Amendment Act has become a significant legal issue in India, with its provisions raising contentious debates in both Parliament and on the streets. The matter has now escalated to the Supreme Court, where a three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, is hearing the case. The government, represented by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, is defending the Act, while prominent legal figures like Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi are arguing on behalf of Muslim petitioners. The issue centers around two controversial provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, concerning Waqf by user and the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf boards. In this article, we will explore the details of the ongoing legal proceedings, the government’s position, and the political implications of the case.

The Waqf Amendment Act and Its Controversial Provisions

The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, aims to bring about reforms in the management and governance of Waqf properties in India. Waqf properties are those that are donated by individuals for religious, educational, or charitable purposes, and the Act seeks to improve transparency and accountability in their administration. However, some of the provisions of the Act have caused significant concern among various groups.

One of the most contentious provisions of the Act is Waqf by user, which refers to the use and management of Waqf properties by individuals or entities who have been entrusted with their upkeep. This provision allows for a change in the status of certain Waqf properties, leading to concerns about the potential for misuse.

Another controversial provision is the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards. Traditionally, Waqf boards have been managed by Muslim community leaders, but the new amendment seeks to allow the inclusion of non-Muslims in these boards, which has sparked opposition from certain sections of the Muslim community. The argument is that such a change could undermine the religious autonomy of the Waqf institutions.

Supreme Court Hearing and Tushar Mehta’s Assurance

The issue has now reached the highest court in the country, and the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench is currently deliberating on the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, has presented the government’s defense of the Waqf Amendment Act. During the hearings, Tushar Mehta made an important assurance to the Court regarding two of the Act’s provisions: Waqf by user and the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf boards.

On Thursday, Mehta assured the Court that the government would halt the implementation of these two provisions for the time being. The government has officially stated that it will not allow any non-Muslim appointments to Waqf boards, and it will not make any changes to Waqf properties under the Waqf by user provision at this stage. This assurance from the government came in response to concerns raised by the Muslim petitioners about the potential implications of these provisions.

Why Did Tushar Mehta Make This Assurance?

The question arises as to why Tushar Mehta made this assurance to the Supreme Court. To understand this, it is essential to examine the broader context of recent legal decisions, particularly those involving sensitive constitutional matters such as Article 370 and sedition laws.

In May 2022, the Supreme Court had struck down provisions related to sedition laws, declaring them unconstitutional. This decision set a significant precedent, as it indicated the Court’s willingness to revisit and potentially nullify controversial laws. The government had previously defended the sedition law, but following the Court’s observations, it reconsidered its stance.

Similarly, in September 2023, the issue of Article 370 came up before the Supreme Court. The question was whether Parliament had the authority to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and reduce its status to a Union Territory. Before the Court could deliver its judgment, the government argued that no judicial decision should be made, as discussions were ongoing regarding Jammu and Kashmir’s full statehood. The Court, in turn, refrained from issuing a decision.

Tushar Mehta, in the context of the Waqf Amendment Act, seems to have learned from these earlier rulings. By offering the assurance on the implementation of the two provisions, he aims to avoid potential backlash from the Court and prevent further complications in the matter.

The Political Significance of the Waqf Amendment Act

The political implications of the Waqf Amendment Act are profound, especially as the case continues to unfold in the Supreme Court. The law touches upon key aspects of religious and cultural autonomy, which makes it highly sensitive. The provisions of the Act, particularly the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards, have created a divide not only among the Muslim community but also among political parties.

The opposition parties, including Congress and other Muslim advocacy groups, have criticized the Act, arguing that it infringes upon the autonomy of Muslim institutions. On the other hand, the ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has defended the law, claiming that it is designed to improve the functioning of Waqf properties and ensure better governance.

The case has become a political battleground, with each side using the issue to rally support among its respective constituencies. The involvement of high-profile legal personalities like Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing the Muslim petitioners has further amplified the stakes in this case. As the matter progresses in the Supreme Court, it is likely to influence the political landscape in the run-up to the next general elections.

Potential Outcomes and Legal Precedents

As the Supreme Court deliberates on the Waqf Amendment Act, the potential outcomes of the case remain uncertain. However, the Court’s approach so far suggests that it may be inclined to issue an interim order to halt the implementation of the two contentious provisions. The Court has also hinted at considering the broader implications of these provisions, particularly in terms of their impact on religious and cultural rights.

If the Court rules against the government’s position, it could lead to a significant setback for the Waqf Amendment Act. On the other hand, if the government’s position is upheld, it could set a precedent for future amendments to laws governing religious institutions and properties in India.

In any case, the Waqf Amendment Act will likely continue to be a topic of debate and legal scrutiny for the foreseeable future. As the case progresses, it will provide valuable insights into how the Indian judiciary balances the rights of religious communities with the government’s reform agenda.

The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, is one of the most significant legal developments in recent times, with its provisions stirring debate and controversy across the political spectrum. As the matter now stands before the Supreme Court, the involvement of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and prominent legal figures from the opposition underscores the importance of this case. The assurance given by the government to halt the implementation of the contentious provisions has added a new layer of complexity to the case, and the Court’s final decision will have far-reaching consequences for both the legal and political landscape in India.

As the hearings continue, all eyes are on the Supreme Court, which will determine the future of the Waqf Amendment Act and its implications for religious institutions in India. The outcome of this case will not only affect the Waqf community but also set a precedent for how similar legal issues are handled in the future.