Ahead of retirement, CJI Sanjiv Khanna sends Waqf Amendment Act case in Supreme Court to Justice Gavai-led Bench

The Supreme Court on Monday said that the petitions challenging the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 will not be heard by the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna. .The matter will instead be heard by a Bench headed by Justice BR Gavai.This development came about in light of the fact that CJI Khanna is set to demit office on May 13 and the matter would require a lengthy hearing even for passing an interim order."We have gone through the counter and rejoinder. Yes some points have been raised on registration and some figures which are disputed by petitioners. It needs to be dealt with. There are two things which have to point out. I do not want to reserve any judgment or order even in interim stage. This matter has to be heard on any reasonable day. It will not be before me. We will post it before the bench of Justice (BR) Gavai on Wednesday or Thursday for both interim and final orders," CJI Khanna said today when the matter came up before a Bench also comprising Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan."We would have loved to pursue your lordship as every contention has an answer. But we cannot embarrass you because there is no time," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said."List this next Wednesday (May 14) before a bench presided by Justice BR Gavai," the Court ordered."It is painful to remind your lordship (about the retirement)," the SG said. "No, no I am looking forward to it," CJI Khanna responded..This matter has to be heard on any reasonable day. It will not be before me. We will post it before the bench of Justice (BR) Gavai.CJI Sanjiv Khanna.Background.The order was passed in a slew of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.The Lok Sabha had passed the law on April 3, while the Rajya Sabha cleared it on April 4.The new law amended the Waqf Act, 1995, in order to address the regulation of Waqf properties, that is, properties dedicated exclusively for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law.The amendment Act received Presidential assent on April 5.A bunch of petitions were filed before the top court challenging the amendment's validity, including by Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mohammad Jawed and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi.More such petitions followed in the ensuing days. The petitioners contended that the amendment amounts to discrimination against Muslims. They argued that the amendments selectively target Muslim religious endowments and interfere with the community’s constitutionally protected right to manage its own religious affairs.On the other hand, six Bhartiya Janta Party-ruled States also moved the Supreme Court in the matter, albeit in support of the amendment. These intervention applications have been filed by the States of Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Assam. These States have primarily highlighted how they would be affected in case the constitutionality of the Amendment Act were to be tinkered with.At the core of the challenge is the removal of waqf by user from the statutory definition of waqf. The petitioners argued that this omission would deprive historical mosques, graveyards, and charitable properties many of which have existed for centuries without formal waqf deeds of their religious character..In response, the Union government told the Supreme court that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, was brought in to curb the misuse of waqf provisions that were being misused to encroach private and government properties.In a written response to the petitions challenging the new law, the Centre said after the previous amendment to the Waqf Act in 2013, there was 116 percent rise in "auqaf area".Defending the abolition of the concept of 'waqf by user', the Centre said despite there being a regime of mandatory registration for all kinds of waqf since 1923, individuals or organizations used to claim private lands and government lands as waqf "which not only lead to deprivation of valuable property rights of individual citizens but similarly unauthorized claims over public properties"The Centre also said that the exclusion of "waqf by user" from the definition of waqf does not curtail the right to dedicate property to God but merely regulates the form of dedication in keeping with statutory requirements.On the objections regarding the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, the Centre said that the changes in the composition of the Central Waqf Council (which is only an advisory body) and the Waqf Board (which only supervises secular activities) do not impair the Muslim community’s rights under Article 26, it has stated.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, it was submitted..[Read Live Coverage]