Owaisi moves SC seeking extension of time to register Waqf properties
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi seeks Supreme Court extension for waqf registration deadline, citing urgency as only one month remains.
All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief and Lok Sabha parliamentarian Asaduddin Owaisi has moved the Supreme Court seeking an extension of the six-month deadline prescribed under the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 for registration of waqfs on the government’s digital portal.
The application, filed through advocate Nizam Pasha, was mentioned on Thursday before a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai. Pasha urged the Court to clarify that the registration period be extended, since nearly five months of the six-month window had elapsed by the time the Court delivered its judgment finding favour with much of the amended law on September 15.
“Six months were given in the Act, five months went by during the passing of judgment, we now only have one month,” submitted Pasha, quoting poet Seemab Akbarabadi to illustrate the urgency: “Umr daraz maang kar laaye the chaar din, do aarzoo mein kat gaye, do intezaar mein” -- those who wished for four more days to live, spent two desiring them and two waiting for them.
Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta did not object to the listing but pointed out that the Centre was not informed of the mentioning of the plea. The CJI said the Court would hear the matter but cautioned that “listing does not mean granting.”
Owaisi’s plea points to Section 3B and Section 36(10) of the amended Act, which require every waqf -- new or old, to upload details of its properties on the central portal within six months of the amendments coming into force on April 8, 2025.
It argues that “failure to do so by October 8, when the period lapses, would mean that several old waqfs could lose legal protection and risk encroachment or third-party claims, since unregistered waqfs cannot initiate or pursue legal proceedings to enforce their rights”.
The application stresses that “the upshot of the operation of Section 3B read with Section 36(10) is that all waqfs not registered in time stand exposed to dispossession and encroachment,” and seeks the Court’s direction to extend the registration deadline to “such further period as may be deemed fit and proper.”
In its interim order delivered last month, the Supreme Court refused to suspend the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, in its entirety, but put on hold some contentious provisions pending further examination.
The bench, comprising CJI Gavai and Justice AG Masih, suspended provisions empowering district collectors to unilaterally decide whether a property claimed as waqf belongs to the government, terming them prima facie arbitrary. It also stayed the clause that allows only practising Muslims of at least five years to create waqf, clarifying that this requirement would apply only after state governments framed rules to determine such adherence.
However, the bench upheld the mandatory digital registration of waqf properties, holding that it promotes transparency and efficiency and has existed in law since 1923. The court also allowed the deletion of the concept of waqf-by-user (properties used for religious purposes but never formally declared waqf), the bar on designating protected monuments or tribal lands as waqf, and the application of the Limitation Act to waqf disputes.
The court further held that the Central Waqf Council may include up to four non-Muslim members, and state waqf boards up to three, but suggested that their CEOs should “preferably belong to the Muslim community” to preserve the institutions’ religious character.
While the government defended the reforms as necessary for accountability and modernisation, petitioners, including senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Huzefa Ahmadi, argued that the law curtailed minority rights and gave excessive power to the executive.
The court took a middle path, noting that legislation is presumed constitutional, and suspended only those provisions that could irreparably alter property rights or dilute minority protections.
