Will Muslims also find place on Hindu boards, SC asks Centre

Amid violent protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act-2025 in West Bengal and other states, the Supreme Court on Wednesday proposed to stay some of its key provisions, including the power to denotify properties declared as Waqf by courts and inclusion of non-Muslims in central Waqf councils and boards.

The contentious issue of allowing non-Muslims in the governance of Waqf properties saw sharp exchanges between a three-judge Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The Bench, which also included Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan, questioned the logic behind permitting non-Muslims in Waqf governance, while a similar reciprocity did not apply to Hindu religious endowments.

“Are you suggesting that Muslims could now be part of Hindu endowment boards as well? Please state it openly,” the CJI told Mehta, who clarified that not more than two non-Muslim members, apart from ex officio ones, would be included in the Waqf council.

The Bench pointed out that under the new Act, only eight of the 22 members of the Central Waqf Council would be Muslims. “If eight are Muslims, two may be judges who might not be Muslims. That leaves a majority of non-Muslims. How is this consistent with the religious character of the institution,” it asked. The tensions briefly escalated when the law officer appeared to question the neutrality of the all-Hindu judicial Bench. “When we sit here, we shed our personal identities. For us, all parties are equal before the law. That comparison is entirely misplaced… Why not allow non-Hindus in the advisory boards of Hindu temples,” it asked.

The other contentious issue was “Waqf by user”—a practice where a property is recognised as a Muslim endowment (Waqf) based on its long-term, uninterrupted use for such purposes, even if there isn’t a formal, written declaration of Waqf by the owner.

“Ordinarily, courts do not interfere at the admission stage when a law is passed. But this case may warrant an exception. If a property declared as Waqf by user is denotified, it can have grave ramifications,” the Bench said.

“The properties declared as Waqf by the courts should not be de-notified—whether they are declared Waqf by user or by deed while the court is hearing the challenges to the Waqf Amendment Act-2025,” the Bench proposed, saying it will “balance the equities”.

It also proposed that the proviso of the Amendment Act, as per which a Waqf property will not be treated as Waqf while the Collector is conducting an inquiry—where the property is a government land—will not be given effect to and that all members of the Waqf boards and Central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex officio members.

The Bench heard senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan, CU Singh and others for dozens of Muslim bodies and individuals who have challenged the amendment and the Solicitor General for the Centre for two hours.

On behalf of the petitioners, the senior advocates alleged that the amendment infringed upon the religious freedom of Muslims in managing their religious and charitable institutions, a right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution.

As CJI Khanna proposed to pass the order, Mehta vehemently opposed it, saying no such interim order could be passed without hearing the Centre. The Bench deferred the hearing to 2 pm on Thursday. It’s yet to issue a formal notice on petitions challenging the amendment.

CJI Khanna expressed serious concern over the violence in West Bengal during protests against the amendment. “One thing is very disturbing… the violence that is taking place. If the matter is pending here, it should not happen… The issue is before the court and we will decide,” the CJI said before rising for the day.

Top News