The Supreme Court had reserved its interim order on May 22. A bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai heard arguments from the petitioners and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the central government over three consecutive days before reserving the interim order.

According to the Supreme Court’s schedule for September 15, a decision will be announced on this matter on Monday. Petitioners contesting the Waqf (Amendment) Act argue that the amended law grants excessively broad authority regarding the removal of properties from Waqf. They also raise concerns about the composition of the State Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council, stating that membership should be limited to Muslims, excluding ex-officio positions.

Another point of contention involves the district collector’s power to alter property status. The law stipulates that if a district collector determines, after investigation, that a Waqf property is actually government land, it will lose its Waqf identity. Petitioners have also objected to this provision.

The central government maintains that Waqf is a secular concept and that the amended law should be considered constitutional. The government argues that, although Waqf is rooted in Islamic tradition, it is not an essential part of religion and therefore should not be viewed as a religious right.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, asserted that the law deviates from historical and constitutional principles and aims to seize Waqf through non-judicial processes. Furthermore, on April 25, the Ministry of Minority Affairs filed a 1,332-page preliminary affidavit opposing any blanket stay on the law.

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was notified on April 8, following approval from President Droupadi Murmu on April 5. The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha approved the Act on April 3 and April 4, respectively. Following the Act’s approval by Parliament, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court bench conducted hearings for three consecutive days before reserving its interim order, listening to arguments from lawyers challenging the amended Waqf law and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, spokesperson for the AIMPLB, expressed optimism regarding the court’s interim decision, stating hopes for relief on issues such as the removal of Waqf by user and the appointment of non-Muslims in the Waqf Council. Stay has been sought on the Law of Limitation and on the UMEED portal. History is also sought on several other issues. He anticipates that the court will grant relief.

The Supreme Court has set a deadline for considering multiple petitions challenging the SIR process. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, has directed all petitioners challenging the Election Commission’s decision to submit their written arguments by August 8th.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, reiterated concerns that some individuals are being excluded from the draft list to be published by the Election Commission on August 1st, thus potentially losing their right to vote.

The bench acknowledged the Election Commission as a constitutional body obligated to adhere to the law. It also stated that if any discrepancies arise, the petitioners can bring the matter to the court’s attention. The bench asked Sibal and Bhushan to provide the details of 15 individuals who they claim have been declared dead but are alive, stating the court would address the issue.