Supreme Court to Hear Plea on Waqf Registration Deadline as Judicial Clock Consumes Statutory Window

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has agreed to list a crucial application filed by Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi, which seeks an extension of the statutory deadline for registering waqf properties under the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The plea highlights a significant procedural dilemma where the time consumed by judicial review of the Act has left waqf institutions with a critically narrow window to comply, threatening the legal status of thousands of properties dedicated to religious and charitable purposes.

The matter was urgently mentioned before a bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, alongside Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K. Vinod Chandran. Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing Owaisi, articulated the predicament, arguing that the judicial process itself has inadvertently created a situation of near impossibility for compliance.

The Core of the Conflict: A Race Against the Statutory Clock

The crux of the issue lies in the timeline mandated by the new legislation. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which came into force on April 8, 2025, introduced stringent registration requirements. Section 3B of the amended Act requires every existing waqf to upload its details onto the central government's new Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) portal within six months. This period is set to expire on October 8, 2025.

The legal jeopardy for non-compliance is severe. The newly inserted Section 36(10) bars any court from hearing, trying, or adjudicating any suit, appeal, or legal proceeding to enforce rights on behalf of an unregistered waqf. In essence, failure to register by the deadline would render these institutions legally toothless, unable to protect their properties from encroachment or dispossession.

The application underscores that while the six-month compliance window was running, the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act was itself under challenge before the Supreme Court. The court heard arguments on the challenge from May 20-22 but delivered its interim judgment only on September 15.

Advocate Pasha pointedly stated to the bench, "6 months time was given in the Act, 5 months went by during the passing of judgment, we now only have 1 month." He employed a poignant Urdu couplet from Seemab Akbarabadi to emphasize the lost time: "Umr daraz maang kar laye the 4 din, 2 aarzoo mein kat gaye 2 intezaar mein" (We asked for a long life of four days, two were spent in desire, and two in waiting). This analogy effectively captured how the period intended for compliance was largely spent waiting for judicial clarity.

The Legal Peril of Non-Registration

Owaisi's application details the grave and potentially irreversible consequences if the deadline is not extended. It argues that the combined effect of Sections 3B and 36(10) leaves unregistered waqfs exposed to significant risks. The plea states, "...all waqfs not registered in accordance with the Waqf Act stand exposed to dispossession and encroachment, with the attendant risk of third-party rights being unlawfully created over properties that are otherwise irrevocably dedicated in perpetuity."

This raises a fundamental question of equity: can a statutory requirement be enforced strictly when the period for its fulfillment was clouded by the uncertainty of pending litigation? For legal practitioners managing such properties, advising clients has been a challenge. The risk of proceeding with a complex, nationwide registration process under a law that could have been struck down was significant, yet the risk of inaction is now proving to be even greater.

The plea seeks a simple yet vital relief: a direction from the Court to extend the six-month registration period by a duration it deems "fit and proper," effectively unlinking the compliance deadline from the period consumed by the legal challenge.

The Court's Cautious Stance and Broader Context

While agreeing to list the matter, Chief Justice Gavai was quick to manage expectations. In response to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's objection to the plea being mentioned without prior intimation to the Centre, the CJI clarified, "Let it be listed, listing does not mean granting (the relief)." This signals that the court acknowledges the urgency but will proceed with due process and hear all parties before making a decision.

This specific application operates within the larger, highly contested landscape of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The amendment has been challenged by numerous petitioners, including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the Kerala State Waqf Board, and several MPs, who argue it infringes on fundamental rights, undermines the secular fabric, and was passed through a flawed parliamentary process.

In its interim order on September 15, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of certain controversial provisions of the Act, such as the clause requiring a person to be a practicing Muslim for at least five years to create a waqf. However, the Court deliberately did not stay the entire Act, citing the "presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the statute." Crucially, the mandate for registration via the UMEED portal was not stayed, leaving the six-month clock ticking.

The court had also prima facie upheld the Centre's deletion of the "waqf by user" provision, which allowed properties used for religious or charitable purposes over a long period to be recognized as waqf even without a formal dedication. This has been a major point of contention, with petitioners arguing it could lead to the loss of countless properties.

Implications for Legal Practice and Future Legislation

The Supreme Court's decision on this application will have far-reaching implications. For legal professionals, it will set a precedent on how statutory deadlines are treated when they coincide with a period of judicial review. A favorable ruling for the applicant could establish the principle that time spent litigating a law's validity should be excluded from its compliance timelines, providing a form of equitable relief.

Conversely, a strict interpretation upholding the deadline would send a clear message that statutory obligations must be met regardless of pending legal challenges, placing a heavier burden on entities to pursue parallel tracks of compliance and litigation. This case serves as a critical reminder for lawmakers to consider the practical realities of implementation and potential legal challenges when drafting legislation with fixed compliance windows.

As the matter is set to be heard, the legal community and stakeholders in waqf management will be watching closely. The outcome will not only determine the fate of numerous waqf properties but also shape the interplay between legislative mandates, judicial oversight, and the principles of natural justice.