Nobody has right over government land even under Waqf by user principle: Centre to Supreme Court
The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that nobody can claim right over government land and it is legally empowered to reclaim properties which are declared waqf by using the waqf by user principle
New Delhi: The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that nobody can claim right over government land and it is legally empowered to reclaim properties which are declared waqf by using the waqf by user principle.
Waqf by user refers to a concept where a property is recognised as waqf based on its long-term use for religious or charitable purposes, even without formal documentation.
Responding to the submissions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta commenced advancing his arguments on behalf of the Centre before a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
“Nobody has the right over government land,” the top law officer said.
“There is a Supreme Court judgment which says the government can save the property if it belongs to the government and has been declared as waqf,” he said.
At the outset, the law officer said no affected parties have moved the court and “it is nobody’s case that Parliament does not have the competence to pass this legislation.”
He referred to the report of the joint parliamentary committee and the fact that many state governments and state waqf boards were consulted before the Act came into being.
The bench sought response from the Centre on the pleas of the petitioners that an officer above the rank of the district collector can decide the claim over waqf properties on the grounds that they are of government.
“This is not just misleading but a false argument,” the law officer said.
The hearing in the case is underway.
The Centre, in its written note, strongly defended the Act, saying waqf by its very nature is a “secular concept” and can’t be stayed as there is a “presumption of constitutionality” in its favour.
It addressed the issues the court had previously raised and said the law only sought to regulate secular aspects of waqf administration while safeguarding religious freedom. He said there was no “grave national urgency” calling for its stay.
“It is a settled position in law that constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision, either directly or indirectly, and will decide the matter finally. There is a presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws made by Parliament,” the note said.
The bench, on Tuesday, underscored the “presumption of constitutionality in favour of the law and said petitioners challenging the waqf law needed a “strong and glaring” case for interim relief.
“There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, presumption of constitutionality will be there,” the CJI said when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, leading the charge against the legislation, began his submissions.
The Centre had urged the bench to confine the hearing on pleas to three issues.
One of the issues is the power to denotify properties declared as waqf by courts, waqf by user or waqf by deed.
The second issue relates to the composition of state waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council, where they contend only Muslims should operate except ex-officio members whereas the last one is over the provision stipulating a waqf property won’t be treated as a waqf when the collector conducts an inquiry to ascertain if the property is government land.
The Centre notified the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 last month after it got President Droupadi Murmu’s assent on April 5.
The bill was cleared by Lok Sabha with the support of 288 members while 232 MPs were against it. The Rajya Sabha saw 128 members voting in its favour and 95 against it.
