CJI Khanna defers pleas on Waqf Act to May 15
The Supreme Court on Monday listed petitions challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on May 15.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna stated that he cannot reserve judgement in the case due to his upcoming retirement. The matter will now be heard by CJI-designate BR Gavai.
“We have not very deeply gone into the counter affidavit. Yes, you have raised certain points in regards to registration and have given some disputed figures, that will require some consideration.
There are certain aspects you dealt with, but that requires clarification. I don’t have to reserve any judgment or order at the interim stage. This matter will have to be heard on a reasonably early date and this will not be before me,” said CJI Khanna.
CJI Khanna demits office on May 13 and will be succeeded by CJI-designate Justice Gavai a day after his superannuation.
“We would have loved to pursue your lordship (the CJI) as every contention has an answer. But, we cannot embarrass you because there is no time,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said while indicating the retirement of the CJI.
“It is painful to remind your lordship (about the retirement),” the law officer added. “No no I am looking forward to it,” the CJI responded.
Earlier, the Centre had assured the apex court on April 17 that it would neither denotify waqf properties, including “waqf by user”, nor make any appointments to the Central Waqf Council and boards till May 5.
The Centre made the assurance while informing the bench that the law, passed by Parliament with “due deliberations”, should not be stayed without hearing the government.
The batch of five petitions are now titled ‘In Re the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025’ and they include the one filed by AIMIM chief and Hyderabad MP Asadudding Owaisi.
In its affidavit on April 25, the Centre defended the amended Act and opposed any “blanket stay” by the court on a “law having presumption of constitutionality passed by Parliament”.
Justifying a provision on “waqf by user” properties, it said any interference would create a “legislative regime by a judicial order”.