Supreme court hearing on conversion: The Supreme Court agreed on Friday (May 2) to consider the petition challenging the constitutional validity of the revised law of 2024 in Uttar Pradesh on the illegal conversion case.

A bench of CJI Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan, Senior Advocate S.K. Considering the arguments of Muralidhar. Advocate S. Muralidhar said, “Some provisions of the revised ‘Religion Compression Prohibition Act’ amended in the year 2024 are unclear and extremely comprehensive and this ambiguity violates freedom of expression and religion.

Although Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna did not issue any notice on the PIL at present, he said that the matter will be heard on Tuesday (May 13, 2025) along with other pending petitions. The Supreme Court is hearing a public interest litigation filed by Lucknow resident Rukrakha Verma and others against the revised law.

Advocate filed questions on the revised law in the petition filed

The petition filed through advocate Purnima Krishna alleged that this law violates Article 14 (equality before law), 19 (speech and freedom of expression), 21 (life and personal freedom) and 25 (freedom of religion).

He claimed in the petition that sections 2 and 3 of the Act are vague, extremely comprehensive and unique standards, which makes it difficult to determine what is the crime in reality?

Punishable law should be clear and accurate- Advocate Purnima

The petition stated, “This ambiguity violates speech freedom and religious propagation, which makes it possible to implement it in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, while punishable laws should be accurate. Intelligent provisions provide high discretionary to the officers and violate constitutional principles by taking the risk of incorrectly prosecution against innocent persons.”

The petition also said, “The main concern in this is that the 2024 amendment expands the category of authorized persons to file a complaint without including procedural security measures.” It is noteworthy that many petitions challenging the validity of laws of various states on conversion in the Supreme Court are pending.

Supreme Court Judgement on New Waqf Act: The Supreme Court proposed to stop some of the major provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in an important development on Wednesday (16 April), including the power to involve non-obtained assets declared by the courts and to include non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Councils and Board.

The apex court proposed to pass the order, which the Center opposed and appealed for a detailed hearing before any interim order. The hearing related to 72 petitions against the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was held before the bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan.

Supreme Court asked questions from Soleitor General

The court bench will continue the hearing on Thursday (April 17). It expressed displeasure over the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Councils and Board and asked the Center if he was ready to include Muslims in Hindu religious trusts? After hearing the arguments of senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan, Abhishek Singhvi, CU Singh on behalf of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Muslim bodies and individual petitioners, the Chief Justice proposed to issue notice and pass an interim order and said that it will balance the equality.

It is mentioned that some provisions can have serious consequences, especially those who can weaken judicially recognized Waqf properties, the Chief Justice proposed the order. The bench said, “The properties declared as Waqf on behalf of the courts should not be non-defined as Waqf, whether they are Waqf on behalf of the user or Waqf on the deed, although the court is hearing a petition challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.”

Indications to stop a provision of revised law

The bench also indicated to stop a provision of the revised law, stating that the vaqf property will not be considered as a waqf until the property is government land or not by the Collector. The bench looked at the provision-wise objections regarding the Act and expressed objections on several aspects of the law, including including non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf boards. In this, the District Collector also objected to the provisions allowing the right to settle disputes related to Waqf properties and to allow non-deferred assets to be declared by competent courts.

Speech on petitions filed against Waqf Amendment Act CJI

CJI Sanjeev Khanna said, “Usually, when a law is passed, courts do not interfere at the entry level, but the case may require exception. If the property declared by the user is unacceptable, it can have serious consequences.”

A sharp debate between back and Solicitor General

During the hearing, there was a sharp noise between the bench and the Solicitor General when the judges questioned the argument behind the permission of non-Muslims in the Waqf administration, while Hindu religious institutions do not apply equal mutuality.

The Law Officer said that in addition to ex-officio members in the Waqf Parishad, more than two non-Muslim members will not be included. He offered to say this in an affidavit. However, the bench said that out of 22 members of the Central Waqf Parishad under the new Act, only eight would be Muslims. The bench asked, “If there are eight Muslims, then there can be two judges who are not Muslims. This leads to a majority of non-Muslims. How is it compatible with the religious character of the institution?”

Questions raised on the fairness of a bench with Hindu judges

After this, the tension increased for some time when the Law Officer questioned the fairness of the bench with all Hindu judges. The bench said, “When we sit here, we give up our personal identity. For us, all sides are the same before the law. This comparison is completely wrong.” He asked why non-Hindus should not be included in the advisory board of Hindu temples again?

Court has not issued any formal notice yet

The court has not currently issued any formal notice and said that it will not consider banning the law in the current stage. The bench questioned Mehta as to how the “Waqf from the user” cannot be allowed, as many people would not have the required documents to register such Waqf. “Waqf” means “the user” is a practice in which a property in the form of religious or charitable settlement (Waqf) is given on the basis of long -term, uninterrupted use for its purposes, even if no formal, written announcement of Waqf has been made by the owner.

The amended provision said, “provided that the existing Waqf properties will remain in the form of Waqf property on the day of or before the implementation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, except that the property is completely or partially in dispute or government property.”

The bench said, “How will you register such a user’s Waqf?” What documents will they have? This will make something undone. Yes, there is some misuse. But they are also real. I have also read the decisions of the Privy Council. The user’s Waqf is recognized. If you undo it, it will be a problem. The legislature cannot declare any decision, order or decree zero. You can only take Aadhaar. ”

Mehta, however, said that a large section of Muslims does not want to be ruled under the Waqf Act. The bench then asked Mehta, “Are you saying that from now on, you will allow Muslims to be a part of the Hindu Entrance Board?” Say it openly. ”

The Supreme Court said that when a public trust was declared a Waqf 100 or 200 years ago, it could not be taken under the Waqf Board and could not be declared otherwise. The bench said, “You cannot write the past again.” To this Mehta said that the Joint Parliamentary Committee held 38 meetings and investigated 98.2 lakh memorandum before its passage from both houses of Parliament.

CJI said at the beginning of the hearing, “There are two aspects on which we want to talk to both sides.” First of all, should we consider it or be handed over to the High Court? Second, briefly explain what you are really insisting and what you want to argue? We are not saying that there is any stay on the Supreme Court in hearing the petitions against the law and taking decisions.

Kapil Sibal said during the hearing

On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocate Kapil Sibal cited the Waqf Amendment Act and said that he is challenging the provision that only Muslims can wow. Sibal asked, “How can the government decide whether I am a Muslim or not and hence I am eligible to wake up?”

He said, “How can the government say that only those people who have been following Islam for the last five years?”

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who represents some petitioners, said that the effect of the Waqf Act will be across India and the petitions should not be sent to the High Court. At the same time, opposing the Waqf Act, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi said that Waqf on behalf of the user is an established practice of Islam and it cannot be taken away.

72 petitions including AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Congress MPs Imran Pratapgarhi and Mohammad Javed have been filed to challenge the validity of the Act.

Center filed a cavity

On April 8, the Center filed a ‘cavity’ in the Supreme Court and appealed for a hearing before passing any order in the case. To ensure that no order is passed by any party to ensure that no order is passed without hearing its side.

Supreme Court on Waqf Amendment Bill 2025: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 16, 2025) started hearing on petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The bench of Chief Justice (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Vishwanathan is hearing the case. The court did not pass any interim order and will resume the hearing on Thursday, 17 April.

Ten petitions were listed in front of the back. More than 15 petitions have been filed by religious institutions, members of Parliament, political parties, states challenging the 2025 Act. Five BJP -led states: Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana and Maharashtra have filed intervention applications supporting this law. On April 8, the Center filed a cavity in the Supreme Court requesting that no order be passed without listening to its side.

Supreme Court’s big comments during today’s hearing

1- During Wednesday’s debate, CJI Khanna expressed concern about how some properties have been classified as Waqf. Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna said, “We have been told that the Delhi High Court building is on the land of Waqf, Oberoi Hotel is on the land of Waqf.

2- Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, presented his arguments. He argued that under Islamic law, the inheritance comes only after death and the government is now trying to intervene before that. Reacting to Sibal’s remarks, CJI Khanna said, “But this happens in Hindus. So Parliament has enacted a law for Muslims. It may not be like a law for Hindus. Article 26 will not stop making laws in this case. Article 26 is universal and it is secular in the sense that it applies to all.”

3- During his arguments, Sibal cited the provision (Section 3C), according to which, the property identified as government property will not be a Waqf property and the government’s authority will decide the dispute. Sibal then mentioned Section 3D, which calls the construction of Waqf invalid on the preserved monuments from ASI. On this, the CJI said that according to the provision, if property was a protected monument at the time of construction of Waqf, then such Waqf would be invalid. CJI Khanna asked, “How many such cases will be there?” Sibal replied, “Jama Masjid.” However, the CJI said that the Jama Masjid was later notified as a protected monument.

According to Live Law, the CJI said, “I think the interpretation is in your favor. If it is declared a Waqf before declaring it an ancient monument, it will not make any difference. It will remain a vaqf, you should not object until it can be declared Waqf after declaring it preserved. Most of the monuments, ancient mosques, will not be affected by this section.”

4- Sibal also talked about Section 9, 14 related to the nomination of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Parishad and State Waqf boards. Sibal said that this is a direct violation of Article 26. Sibal argued that the central law related to Sikhs and Hindu religious settlement related to gurdwaras and many state laws related to laws do not allow people of other religions to include people. Sibal also objected to the provisions that make registration mandatory. CJI asked, “What’s wrong with this?” Sibal said that at present, a Waqf can be made by the user without registration.

The CJI said, “You can register the Waqf, which will also help you to maintain the register.” Justice Vishwanathan also said, “If you have a deed then there will be no fake or false claim.” Sibal said, “They will ask us whether a Waqf was created 300 years ago and will ask to present its documents. Many of these assets were made hundreds of years ago and they will not have any documents.”

5- On behalf of the Center, India’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized that the law was enacted after a practice by the Joint Parliamentary Committee. He said that both houses of Parliament passed the bill after a long debate. While the debate continued, the CJI pointed to the provision related to disputes with the government and asked why the property should not be considered until the dispute was settled.

The CJI said, “Why will this waqf not live? Let the civil court decide it.” The CJI asked, “Mr. Tushar Mehta, tell us. If the Waqf-Bai-Uzer was accepted before the 2025 Act, is it now declared zero or existential?”

6- The CJI also sought clarity about the conditions that the property should not be disputed. The CJI said, “We did not have any registration before the British arrive. Many mosques are built in the 14th or 15th century. It is impossible to present them to submit the registered documents. In most cases, such as Jama Masjid Delhi, Waqf By user will be Waqf.”

7- The Chief Justice also questioned Mehta about the provision made in Section 2A, which states that despite any decision of the court, the property of the trust will not come under the purview of the Waqf Act. The CJI said, “You cannot declare any decision or order of the Legislative Court zero, you can remove the basis of the law but you cannot declare any decision binding.”

8- CJI Khanna also asked about the provisions allowing for enrollment of non-Muslim members in Waqf boards. The CJI asked, “When we sit here to take a decision, we forget our religion. We are talking about a board that is managing religious matters. Suppose in the Hindu temple, all Hindus in the Governor Council are all Hindus. How are you comparing with judges?”

9- The CJI also expressed concern over the provision of Section 2A. CJI Khanna said, “Where the public trust has been declared a Waqf, suppose 100 or 200 years ago, you turn back and say that it is not a waqf. You cannot write the past 100 years ago!”

10- During the hearing, Tushar Mehta said that a large section of Muslims does not want to be governed by the Waqf Act. On this, the CJI asked whether you are saying that now Muslims will also be included in the Hindu Entry Board? Just say it clearly.

Also read: ‘Apart from ex -officio officials in Waqf Board, Muslim members should be only’, Supreme Court comments

Supreme court hearing on new waqf act: Today, on Wednesday (April 16), amidst the protests and support across the country on the Waqf Amendment Act, this case is being held in the Supreme Court for the first time. At 2 pm, Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.K. The bench of V. Vishwanathan will hear the matter. A total of 72 petitions have been listed for hearing in the Supreme Court regarding the Waqf Amendment Act.

The petitioners have said that the new Waqf law is against fundamental rights like Article 14, 15 (equality), 25 (religious freedom) 26 (religious affairs) and 29 (minority rights) of the Constitution. The petitioners have also described the change in law against Article 300A i.e. the right to property.

Some major petitions filed for hearing on Waqf law in Supreme Court

• AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi
• AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan
• Maulana Arshad Madani (Jamiat Ulema chief)
• SP MP Ziaurrahman Burke
• TMC MP Mahua Moitra
• Congress MP Mohammad Javed
• All Kerala Jamiatul Ulema
• RJD MP Manoj Jha
• Indian Union Muslim League
• JDU leader Parvez Siddiqui
• Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi

Apart from these, other leaders of political parties like Congress, TMC, DMK, CPI have also filed petitions. All India Muslim Personal Law Board has also filed a petition in this matter. It has been mainly stated in all the petitions that it is a discriminatory law with Muslims. Waqf is a religious institution. Government intervention in his functioning is wrong.

Applications filed in court in support of new Waqf law

Many applications have also filed in the court in support of the Waqf Amendment Act. 7 states of India- Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Assam and Chhattisgarh, have described the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 as practical, transparent and justified.

Apart from this, some tribal organizations have expressed support by describing it as a law protecting their community. He has said that due to the old law, the Waqf Board was also taking possession of the land of the Scheduled Tribes. However, this will not happen now.

The court does not give unilateral orders, so the central government filed cavity

The central government has filed a cavity in the Supreme Court. The Center has demanded to listen to its side before any order. Since the petitions opposing the Waqf Amendment Act have also been demanded to ban the law. In such a situation, the government has tried to ensure that the court should not give any unilateral order without listening to its side.

Jagdeep dhankar praise cji sanjiv khanna: Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar has given a statement in the case of burnt notes found in the house of Justice Yashwant Verma of Delhi High Court. He said that the Supreme Curt has taken steps in the right direction, the first thing has happened after independence that the Chief Justice has placed all the material in the universal domain. The Chairman gave this statement after meeting the House Leader JP Nadda and the Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge.

He said that there is a need to end such unhealthy so that such situations do not come again. The Rajya Sabha president described the judiciary’s internal response as ‘step taken in the right direction’. Jagdeep Dhankhar said, ‘I am grateful to the leader of the House Nadda and the Leader of the Opposition Kharge. We had a meaningful discussion on the issue arising in the minds of the judiciary. For the first time after independence, a Chief Justice has kept all the material available in a public domain in a transparent and accountable manner and shared it without hiding anything with the court.

‘Steps taken in a right direction’

The President of the Rajya Sabha further said, ‘This is a step taken in the right direction. The formation of a committee on behalf of the Chief Justice of India and their vigilance is also a factor that needs to be considered. Institutions like the judiciary and the legislature fulfill their objectives in the best way when their internal mechanism is effective, fast and maintaining public confidence.

‘Action initiated in impressive and transparent manner’

He said, ‘Since this is the first time that the Chief Justice of the judiciary Sanjeev Khanna has initiated action in a very impressive, transparent manner, it would be appropriate to wait for the results of the committee as it will help us to get full material for our thoughts. There was a very thoughtful suggestion from Kharge that in accordance with the parliamentary tradition, the issue should be discussed with the leaders of the House and finding the suggestion appropriate, as well as a meeting will be scheduled after the full approval of the three of us, in which I will invite the leaders of the House to decide on this. ‘

‘CJI Sanjeev Khanna takes unprecedented steps’

Jagdeep Dhankhar said, ‘I have strongly indicated that if we look at the previous performance, these steps taken by Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna are unprecedented and what can be needed in such a challenging situation, which is agitating the members of the judiciary, members of the bar, MPs and general public, through its investigation, there will

He also said, ‘I will determine a meeting in this regard and send information according to the suggested suggestions of Kharge and Nadda. I am grateful to their deep understanding because both of them are with rich experiences, being president of their respective political parties and holding constitutional positions, it is believed that institutions in the country should be developed only with honesty and public commitment and need to end such evil practices so that it does not recur. I am grateful to both of them that they gave time on this issue with the spirit of keeping the nation ahead of everything.

Also read: Will Justice Verma not do any judicial work in Allahabad HC? Collegium recommends transfer from center