SC to hear pleas challenging Waqf Amendment Act today
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is set to hear a significant batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on Tuesday.
A bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai will deliberate on whether the implementation of the amended law should be stayed pending a final decision on the matter. The focus of the hearing will be on granting interim relief to the petitioners, with arguments from all sides scheduled to be presented before the Court rules on the stay.
The central government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has already assured the Court that the contentious provisions of the Act will not be enforced until further notice.
After the apex court hinted at passing a stay order, the Union government had assured the top court that it would not de-notify provisions related to 'Waqf by user' or include non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board.
In the previous hearing, held under the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the apex court had identified three core issues for consideration: the process of de-notifying Waqf properties, whether by usage or deed, the potential inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf institutions, and the classification of government land as Waqf property.
The Court had granted a week to the Centre and state governments and the Waqf Boards to file their preliminary reply.
It decided to treat five writ petitions as lead cases. It said that other pleas will be treated as intervention applications, apart from ordering the registry to rename the cause titles of the proceedings as "In Re: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025".
Petitioners have contended that the amended Act is discriminatory and infringes upon the fundamental rights of the Muslim community.
Conversely, six BJP ruled states have backed the central government, supporting the amendments as constitutionally valid and necessary.
The Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, received presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on April 5 after it was passed in both Houses of Parliament following intense debate.
The Centre, in its preliminary affidavit, has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions, arguing that the Act does not infringe upon constitutional guarantees.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
11 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Odisha: Medha Patkar, IRS officer detained over planned protest against bauxite mining
Environment activist Medha Patkar was detained along with over 20 others by the Rayagada administration shortly after she arrived in the Odisha district on Thursday to participate in a public meeting in protest against the proposed bauxite mining by Vedanta Limited. Officials barred her from reaching the place along with 24 others, including activist Prafulla Samantra and IRS officer Sunanda Jhodia, citing that her presence at the protest at Sunger Hatapada village, organised by anti-mining forum 'Maa Mati Mali Surakshya Mancha', could create a law-and-order situation. Rayagada district collector Parul Patawari's order, dated June 4, said there is a reasonable apprehension the movement and the presence of Patkar and other activists may lead to deterioration of law and order, disturb public peace and hinder smooth conduct of administrative affairs and development processes in the district. 'Therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec 163(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhya Sanhita,2023, Collector hereby issues prohibiting order restricting the above named individuals from entering or remaining present in Rayagada district for a period of two months from the date of issue of this order & participating in or instigating any form of protest, Dharana or unlawful assemblies within the said area. Any violation of this order shall be liable for action as per the law,' the order stated. After she was detained at the Rayagada railway station by police, Patkar was swiftly sent to Berhampur from where she travelled to Bhubaneswar. 'When I got off the train, the police stopped me at the station. I sat there and they asked me to wait in the VIP lounge, but I refused. I was supposed to go to the house of the person who came to receive me and then attend the programme. But the police did not allow it and showed me an order from the Collector listing 20 to 25 names of people who were barred from entering Rayagada district. They accused me of coming here to 'instigate' people,' she said. The meeting at Sunger, where Patkar was scheduled to speak, was planned in protest against bauxite mining at hills that straddle Kalahandi and Rayagada districts. In March 2023, the Odisha government issued a 50-year mining lease for a proposed bauxite mining project in the Sijimali hills, with the mines extending over an area of 1,549 hectares. After facing setbacks in its plans to mine at the Niyamgiri hills, Vedanta's interest shifted to the Sijimali. The mines have an estimated bauxite reserve of 311 million tonnes. The Sijimali mining project is likely to displace 100 families from 18 villages in the two districts, activists claim. Vedanta has applied for the mandatory Environment Clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and Forest Clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In October 2023, two public hearings in Rayagada and Kalahandi districts for environmental clearance ended amid much protests. Protesting the detention of Patkar, former state Congress chief Niranjan Patnaik called it unfortunate. 'It is an assault on the very spirit of democracy. People who believe in democratic values should reflect seriously on this. Who are the architects behind this decision? In whose interest such a decision has been taken,' Patnaik asked.
India Today
34 minutes ago
- India Today
Government to count castes, not classes in 2027 census: Sources
The Government of India will undertake the next nationwide census in 2027, and for the first time, caste enumeration will be formally included in the exercise. However, official sources told India Today TV that the data collected will record individual castes, not social categories or classes such as Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs) or Scheduled Tribes (STs). This means the census will not provide aggregate figures for groups like the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). One of the key reasons cited is the variation in caste categorisation across states — castes classified as OBC in one state may fall under the general category in another. As per the protocol, every individual will be required to mention their caste along with their religion. This will apply to all communities, including Muslims, Christians, and others. However, officials admitted there will be no verification mechanism to check the accuracy of self-declared caste data. Government benefits tied to caste, such as reservation, will continue to be granted only on the basis of officially issued caste certificates. The enumeration will strictly be a caste count and not a socio-economic or class-based assessment. This implies that while the names of castes will be recorded, no effort will be made to classify them into reserved or non-reserved categories under the census process, sources added. They further clarified that the census will have no bearing on the delimitation exercise scheduled for 2026, which is likely to be based on the 2011 census. Also, the 50 per cent reservation cap, currently under judicial scrutiny, will remain a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, with no role for the government in this context. The 2027 census will be conducted digitally and is expected to take only three years, a significant reduction from the usual five-year process. It will be carried out in two phases, with March 1, 2027, as the reference date for most parts of the country. In snow-bound and non-synchronous regions such as Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, the reference date will be October 1, 2026. The move to include caste enumeration followed years of demand from political parties and state governments for data that could guide welfare policies and social justice initiatives. The last such comprehensive population census took place in 2011.
Scroll.in
36 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Same-sex couples can form families, says Madras High Court
The Madras High Court held that while the Supreme Court had not legalised same-sex marriage, queer couples can 'very well form a family'. In a May 22 order, the bench of Justices GR Swaminiathan and V Lakshminarayanan noted that: 'The expression 'family' has to be understood in an expanded sense.' 'Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family,' the High Court said. 'The concept of 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence. The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.' Delivering its verdict on petitions seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriages, a five-judge Constitution bench had ruled in October 2023 that the issue must be decided by Parliament and that there was no fundamental right to marriage. In January, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions against its October 2023 judgement. The observations by the High Court came while it restrained a lesbian woman's family from interfering in her personal life and unlawfully detaining her. The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the partner of a 25-year-old detenue, after the couple was separated. The couple was separated when the detenue was allegedly forcibly restrained by her family. The petitioner had moved the High Court after she alleged that the police refused to help the couple. In court, the detenue's mother accused the petitioner of leading her daughter astray and alleged that her child was now a drug addict. The mother thus claimed that her daughter required counselling and rehabilitation. The court rejected the contention. 'It would be unfair to accuse her [detenue] of any kind of addiction,' the court said. 'She made it clear that she wants to go with the petitioner. She confirmed the allegation that she is being detained against her will by her natal family. It appeared that she was forcibly taken to her home and beaten.' The court also noted that it was told that the detenue's 'natal family members forced her to undergo certain rituals so that she will become normal'. The bench criticised the police for their 'rank inaction' and 'insensitivity' despite receiving a complaint from the petitioner.
