The Delhi High Court has taken a significant step in a legal challenge against the new Waqf legislation. On Monday, the court issued formal notices to multiple authorities, seeking their responses to a petition that questions the constitutionality of specific provisions within the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act of 2025.
Court Seeks Replies from Multiple Authorities
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed several entities to file their replies. The court specifically named the Centre through its Ministry of Minority Affairs and Ministry of Law, the Central Waqf Council, the Delhi Waqf Board, and the Delhi government itself. This broad request for responses indicates the court's recognition of the petition's serious implications.
Petitioners Challenge Specific Sections
The legal challenge comes from members of the Delhi Waqf Tenant Welfare Association, including Satya Bhushan and three others. Their petition targets specific sections of the new legislation that they believe threaten tenant protections.
The petitioners have challenged sections 3(ee), 32, 54, 56, 83, 85, and 88 of the UMEED Act, 2025. They have also questioned Rules 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, and 19 of the accompanying Waqf Properties Lease Rules. This comprehensive challenge suggests deep concerns about how the new law will operate in practice.
Core Concerns About Tenant Protections
At the heart of the petition lies a fundamental worry about tenant rights. The petitioners argue that section 3(ee) expands the definition of "encroacher" to include individuals whose tenancy has expired or been terminated. This expansion, they contend, directly contradicts protections established under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Furthermore, the petitioners highlight that sections 54, 56, and 83 of the new Act provide mechanisms for dispossessing tenants who continue occupying premises after lease termination. They argue these provisions could lead to widespread evictions without adequate legal safeguards.
Jurisdiction Questions Raised
The petition raises additional concerns about jurisdictional matters. According to the petitioners, the new legislation grants Waqf Tribunals authority to decide questions related to tenant eviction and to determine rights and obligations of lessors and lessees regarding Waqf properties.
This expanded jurisdiction, the petitioners argue, exists despite existing protections under both the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act of 1956 and the Delhi Rent Control Act. The potential conflict between these different legal frameworks forms a key part of their constitutional challenge.
Background and Context
This legal challenge emerges against a backdrop of ongoing discussions about Waqf property management reforms. The UMEED Act represents a significant legislative effort to streamline Waqf administration across the country. However, tenant associations have expressed concerns that efficiency measures might come at the cost of established tenant protections.
The Delhi High Court's decision to issue notices suggests the bench considers the petition substantial enough to warrant formal responses from all affected parties. The case will likely involve detailed arguments about balancing property management efficiency with fundamental tenant rights.
As the various authorities prepare their responses, legal observers will watch closely how the court navigates this complex intersection of property law, tenant rights, and administrative efficiency. The outcome could have significant implications for thousands of tenants occupying Waqf properties across Delhi and potentially beyond.
