Supreme Court Bench Led By CJI Gavai Lists Waqf Act Challenge For Further Hearing On May 20
New Delhi: The Supreme Court began hearing the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 on Thursday for the third time. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih is hearing the case, which was heard twice by a bench comprising former Chief Justice Of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan. However, the bench ultimately sent the petitions to CJI Gavai’s bench considering former CJI Khanna’s retirement on May 13.
However, hearing the case, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai said that the further hearing will be held on May 20 regarding the case.
Read Also: “You Cannot Rewrite The Past”: Top 5 Quotes From Supreme Court On Waqf Hearing
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Government, said that they have filed a detailed response regarding the challenge to the Waqf laws introduced by the Central Government. Both Mehta and senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who represents the petitioners, suggested that the case can be heard at a later date as the new chief justice may not have had time to read the brief.
The Court also noted that it will consider the question of interim relief in pleas challenging validity the Waqf Act, 2025, adding that it will not consider any plea seeking stay provisions of the earlier 1995 Waqf law.
Read Also: West Bengal: 3 Killed In Protest Against Waqf Act In Murshidabad
During the earlier hearing, the court proposed interim orders: the properties declared by Courts as waqfs should not be de-notified as Waqfs, whether they are by waqf-by-user or waqf by deed; The proviso of the Amendment Act, as per which a Waqf property will not be treated as a Waqf while the Collector is conducting an inquiry on whether the property is a Government land, will not be given effect to; All Members of the Waqf Boards and Central Waqf Council must be Muslims, except the ex-officio members.
During the previous hearing, the top court had restricted the petitions to five, stating it only restricted the number of petitions and not the number of lawyers.
