New Delhi: The Supreme Court hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 asked parties to address their submissions on two points, including if the pleas be sent to high court.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna told the parties at the outset of hearing that there are two questions before it – first whether it should entertain the pleas challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act or second should the matter be sent to the high court and that the second question will decide the first issue.
“There are two aspects we want to ask both the sides to address. Firstly, whether we should entertain or relegate it to the high court? Secondly, point out in brief what you are really urging and wanting to argue?” the CJI said and added, “The second point may help us in deciding the first issue to some extent.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners challenging the Waqf (Amendmdent Act) urged the apex court not to send the matter to the high court, saying it will have all India ramifications and should not be referred to high court.
CJI Khanna said that one high court may be asked to deal with pleas.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the petitioners, told the bench that through a parliamentary legislation what is sought to be done is to intervene in an essential and integral part of a faith and many provisions of the Act violates Article 26 of the Constitution.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the top court that there was a joint parliamentary committee and before the law was passed, there were 38 sittings, many areas were visited 98.2 lakh memorandums were examined and then it went to both houses.
The top court is hearing over 70 petitions, including pleas filed by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), Congress MPs Imran Pratapgarhi and Mohammad Jawed challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The Centre had on April 8 filed a caveat in the top court and sought a hearing before any order was passed in the matter.
