Can't stay law made by Parliament when validity presumed: Centre on Waqf row
The affidavit, filed by Shersha C Shaik Mohiddin, joint secretary in the Ministry of Minority Affairs, noted that historically, waqf lands totaled 18,29,163.896 acres in India. It alleged misuse of previous provisions to encroach on private and government properties.
- Apr 25, 2025,
- Updated Apr 25, 2025 4:41 PM IST
The Centre has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, asserting that there cannot be a "blanket stay" on the law due to a "presumption of its constitutionality". In a detailed 1,332-page counter affidavit, the government defended the law, highlighting a significant increase in waqf land post-2013, amounting to over 20 lakh hectares.
The affidavit, filed by Shersha C Shaik Mohiddin, joint secretary in the Ministry of Minority Affairs, noted that historically, waqf lands totaled 18,29,163.896 acres in India. It alleged misuse of previous provisions to encroach on private and government properties. "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," it added.
"While this court would examine these challenges when the cases are heard, a blanket stay (or a partial stay) without being aware of the adverse consequences of such an order in a generality of cases (even on members of the Muslim community itself) were the petitions to be unsuccessful would, it is submitted, be uncalled for, especially in the context of the presumption of validity of such laws."
The government emphasised that constitutional courts typically do not stay statutory provisions and that laws made by Parliament are presumed constitutional.
The Centre warned against a blanket or partial stay on the law, arguing that it could have adverse consequences, even for the Muslim community, if the petitions were unsuccessful. The affidavit contended that the challenges to the Act were based on the incorrect assumption that the amendments infringed on fundamental religious freedoms.
The government stated that the amendments were the result of a comprehensive study by a parliamentary panel with members from major political parties. It argued that Parliament acted within its rights to ensure religious endowments like waqf are managed responsibly, without infringing on religious autonomy. The Centre maintained that the law was valid and a lawful exercise of legislative power.
"Parliament has acted within its domain to ensure that religious endowments like waqf are managed in a manner that upholds the trust reposed in them by the faithful and the society at large, without trespassing on religious autonomy," it said.
On April 17, the Centre assured the Supreme Court that it would not denotify waqf properties or make appointments to the central waqf council and boards until May 5. A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is scheduled to hear the matter on May 5 for interim orders.
The Centre has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, asserting that there cannot be a "blanket stay" on the law due to a "presumption of its constitutionality". In a detailed 1,332-page counter affidavit, the government defended the law, highlighting a significant increase in waqf land post-2013, amounting to over 20 lakh hectares.
The affidavit, filed by Shersha C Shaik Mohiddin, joint secretary in the Ministry of Minority Affairs, noted that historically, waqf lands totaled 18,29,163.896 acres in India. It alleged misuse of previous provisions to encroach on private and government properties. "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," it added.
"While this court would examine these challenges when the cases are heard, a blanket stay (or a partial stay) without being aware of the adverse consequences of such an order in a generality of cases (even on members of the Muslim community itself) were the petitions to be unsuccessful would, it is submitted, be uncalled for, especially in the context of the presumption of validity of such laws."
The government emphasised that constitutional courts typically do not stay statutory provisions and that laws made by Parliament are presumed constitutional.
The Centre warned against a blanket or partial stay on the law, arguing that it could have adverse consequences, even for the Muslim community, if the petitions were unsuccessful. The affidavit contended that the challenges to the Act were based on the incorrect assumption that the amendments infringed on fundamental religious freedoms.
The government stated that the amendments were the result of a comprehensive study by a parliamentary panel with members from major political parties. It argued that Parliament acted within its rights to ensure religious endowments like waqf are managed responsibly, without infringing on religious autonomy. The Centre maintained that the law was valid and a lawful exercise of legislative power.
"Parliament has acted within its domain to ensure that religious endowments like waqf are managed in a manner that upholds the trust reposed in them by the faithful and the society at large, without trespassing on religious autonomy," it said.
On April 17, the Centre assured the Supreme Court that it would not denotify waqf properties or make appointments to the central waqf council and boards until May 5. A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna is scheduled to hear the matter on May 5 for interim orders.