Waqf an Islamic concept, but not essential religious practice: Centre tells SC

Strongly defending its recently-passed legislation - Waqf amendment Act, 2025 - the Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that though Waqf is an Islamic concept, it is "not an essential religious practice" in Islam.

Appearing on behalf of the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that making registration of waqf properties compulsory was necessary to remove an "102-year-old menace of misuse of waqf properties".

Mehta also argued that a "misleading campaign and a false narrative has been built" by the petitioners that waqf properties will be captured en masse by the government. The Solicitor General argued that the recently-passed Act (of 2025) provides for provisions ensuring that no government property has been wrongly or illegally declared waqf.


"Government is the custodian of properties on behalf of (over) 140 crore Indians. Any loss of government property is loss of the exchequer," Mehta argued.


Elaborating, Mehta said that a survey to be conducted by the said government officer (Collector) is "only to make an entry in the revenue record".

He said that if the property in question is found to be a property belonging to the government then the government will have to file a title suit before an appropriate judicial forum.

"Even that decision will be amenable to judicial review," Mehta added.

Significantly, Mehta said that a "false narrative" has been built claiming that if waqf deeds are not shown to the government authorities then the government will "capture" the waqf properties.

He further said that it has been argued by petitioners that how would they provide waqf deeds of waqfs which are over 100 years old.

Mehta emphatically clarified that "no waqf deed is required.

Nobody has asked for waqf deeds. Even documents (of the said waqf) of the past five years" would suffice, Mehta added.

The SG contended that if after conducting an inquiry the collector finds that the property in question is a government property and not a waqf, the possession of the waqf "will not be taken away".

He said that the government will have to file a title suit and secure a decision in its favour.

Elaborating on his claim that "waqf is not an essential religious practice" in Islam, Mehta remarked "would a Muslim who does not have the financial wherewithal for waqf, cease to be a Muslim?".

As regards the petitioner's objections pertaining to the inclusion of non-Muslims in the central Waqf Council and state Waqf Boards, Mehta argued that the changes in the composition of these bodies do not impair the Muslim community's rights under Article 26. The addition of non-Muslim members are in a "microscopic minority" in the council and boards, and their presence is meant to give inclusivity to the bodies which are "supervisory" in nature of the "secular activities" of the waqf board.

Mehta also sought to distinguish between a waqf and Hindu trusts and endowment boards which do not allow non-Hindus as members. The petitioners have argued that when non-Hindus are not allowed in Hindu endowment boards, Muslims should not be discriminated against by allowing non-Muslims in waqf boards.

"Hindu endowment deals with only religious activity whereas waqf deals with secular activities. Hindu endowment activities are very pervasive. It is under serious challenge. Hindu endowment commissioners can go inside the temple. Pujari is decided by the state government. Waqf boards do not touch upon religious activity at all," Mehta contended.

The hearing will resume on Thursday when the Centre will conclude its arguments followed by a rebuttal by the petitioners.