Centre tells SC waqf law ‘secular’, says petitioners ‘spinning a false narrative’

NEW DELHI: Putting up a strong defence of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Centre called it a secular law and accused the petitioners challenging its validity in Supreme Court of spinning a false “interference in religious affairs” narrative on mandatory registration of every waqf, including ‘waqf by user‘. It said this provision was more than a century old.
In a 1,332-page affidavit, joint secretary in the minority affairs ministry Shersha C Shaikh Mohiddin requested SC to abide by traditional assumption of validity of a law enacted by Parliament and conduct a detailed hearing without granting any stay on operation of the law, which is to stop misuse of 2013 amendment allowing encroachment of private and govt properties. In the last hearing, SC had flagged 3 issues in 2025 law – registration documents of waqf properties, inclusion of non-Muslims in Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards & determination of govt land.
Waqf Act restricted itself to secular side: Govt
In its affidavit, Centre pointed out that SC in the last 30 years never considered staying provisions of the 1995 Waqf Act and sought an “equitable” approach.
Rebutting the charge that the new law represented an interference with religious rights of Muslims, the Centre said the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, restricted itself to secular dimensions like record management, procedural reforms and administrative structure and not even remotely attempted to interfere in any ritual, prayer or fundamental Islamic obligations.
Addressing the three issues flagged by SC as ‘contentious’, the Centre said the architecture of the 1995 Waqf Act required a relook because of the sudden increase in the area covered under waqf. “Till 2013, that is the period which included Mughal era, pre-independence era and post-independence era, the total area under waqf was 18.3 lakh acres. It is really shocking to note that after 2013, another 20.9 lakh acres of land were added to waqfs, which totalled 39.2 lakh acres,” Centre said.
It said no waqf or individual Muslims could validly question the 2025 provision for mandatory registration of waqf properties as this has been in existence since the enactment of Waqf Act, 1923, and the provision was consistently carried forward through the enactment of Waqf Act, 1954 and Waqf Act, 1995.
“Legislative intent and policy has always been very clear with regard to waqf being registered so that it remains under the statutory regime with respect to its secular aspects like maintenance of accounts, survey of properties, transparent administration and supervision in case of transfer of property of waqf,” the Centre said.
“Those waqfs which have not registered themselves, including ‘waqfs by user’, since 1923, 1954, or at least prior to Jan 1, 1996 (date on which the 1995 Act came into force), nor have they been found to be in existence during the survey by the Survey Commissioner and an independent exercise mandated by law from the State Waqf Board and have no legal existence and any belated claim at this stage is not maintainable,” it added.
Centre said the legislative architecture over the last 100 years mandated registration of waqf properties and those who have violated the law are barred from arguing that “exclusion of unregistered ‘waqf by user’ is either arbitrary, unreasonable or without any logic purpose or intent”.
Central Waqf Council has 22 members and its nature of assignment is to recommend management of properties. Inclusion of a maximum of four non-Muslims would not alter the character or nature of the council. Similar is the case with Waqf Boards, where a maximum of three non-Muslims could be part of an 11-member body, it said.
Defending provisions identifying unlawful waqf claims, Centre cited cases like Hyderabad’s Viceroy Hotel wrongly claimed as waqf. It said earlier provisions enabled encroachments via ‘waqf by user’ and suo motu declarations. Now, govt property identified as waqf encroachment by a senior officer can be challenged before Waqf Tribunals, HCs, and SC, ensuring fair scrutiny.