The Supreme Court of India on Monday turned down requests to extend the deadline for registering Waqf properties under the newly amended Waqf Act. Instead, the apex court directed the petitioners, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, to seek any necessary relief from the designated Waqf Tribunal.
Court's Directive and Legal Remedy
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih disposed of the applications after noting that a statutory remedy was already available. The bench pointed to the proviso in Section 3B of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which allows the Tribunal to grant an extension. The court granted liberty to the applicants to approach the Tribunal by December 6, 2025, which marks the end of the initial six-month period stipulated by the law.
The amended Act mandates that every Waqf registered prior to the commencement of the 2025 amendment must file detailed information about the Waqf and its dedicated properties on a central portal and database. This must be done within a period of six months from the Act's commencement. However, the law also provides a safeguard: the Waqf Tribunal can, on an application by the mutawalli (custodian), extend this period by up to another six months if sufficient cause is shown for the delay.
Petitioners' Concerns and Centre's Stand
Senior advocates representing the applicants, including A M Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, raised practical challenges before the court. They argued that the six-month timeline was too short, citing issues with the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act portal where details must be uploaded. Sibal pointed out that the amendment took effect on April 8, but the portal was created only on June 6, and the relevant Rules were framed on July 3. He emphasized the difficulty in retrieving complete details for Waqfs that are over a century old, which is necessary for the portal to accept the submissions.
Opposing the plea for an extension, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Government, stated that the provision for compulsory registration was not new and had existed since 1929. He also informed the court that lakhs of properties had already been successfully registered on the same portal that the petitioners claimed had glitches.
Digitisation vs. Registration: The Core Debate
The hearing highlighted a key distinction between registration and digitisation. The petitioners clarified that their applications sought more time for the digitisation process—uploading already registered details onto the new portal—and not for the initial registration of the Waqfs themselves.
Justice Masih, referencing the court's earlier interim order from September 15, 2025, noted that the requirement for registration had been consistent in laws since 1923. "So, don't say it was not there; it was always there," the judge remarked. When counsels expressed concern that approaching the Tribunal for 8-9 lakh properties would be impractical, the bench clarified that the logistical burden was for the Tribunal to manage, not the court. Justice Datta assured that once an application is filed before the Tribunal, the timeline freezes, protecting the applicant from penalty during the Tribunal's consideration.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the availability of the alternative legal remedy and places the onus on the Waqf managements to proactively approach the Tribunal with concrete evidence of the difficulties faced in meeting the digitisation deadline.
