Supreme Court refuses blanket extension for Waqf property registration
Constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025Judges: Dipankar Datta J, A.G. Masih J
Today, the Supreme Court refused to extend the six-month deadline to register Waqf Properties. Section 3B of the Waqf Act, 1995, amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 1995 had stipulated mandatory registration of Waqf Properties on the Union’s UMEED Portal.The window for registration is scheduled to close on 6 December.
The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A. G. Masih observed that the statute itself provides a mechanism to seek more time from the Waqf Tribunal. Therefore, the Court cannot direct a blanket extension. The Court disposed of the applications while granting liberty to approach the Tribunal “for remedy under the proviso to Section 3B.”
Petitioners flag ‘impossible’ compliance and portal glitches
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, M.R. Shamshad and Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for the petitioners, argued that meaningful compliance within six months was impossible. They pointed out that the Amendment Act commenced on 8 April, while the UMEED Portal became operational only on 6 June and the Rules were notified on 3 July.
Sibal said the portal required details such as the name and address of the waqif even where the waqf was “100 years or 50 years or 25 years old.” He submitted that the portal rejected applications if these details were missing and told the Court that users had been “trying to upload every day” but were unable to do so due to persistent glitches.
He added that lakhs of mutawallis would be forced to approach the Tribunal individually if the timeline was not relaxed. Singhvi said that the presence of “genuine glitches” meant there would be no real compliance by the cut-off date.
Shamshad submitted that many waqfs did not have mutawallis and that the Waqf Boards already held the relevant information. Pasha added that digitisation had taken more than a decade and that rural properties remained particularly difficult to upload.
Union says the statute already provides a remedy
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed any blanket extension. He said that compulsory registration of waqfs had existed “since 1929.” He argued that the applicants were effectively asking the Court to alter Section 3B even though the statute allows the Tribunals to grant extensions. He maintained that the UMEED Portal was functional and that “people are already registering.” He informed the Court that 1,16,600 properties had been uploaded. He relied on an affidavit stating that 99 percent of waqf properties had been digitised. He submitted that any waqf unable to comply within six months could “go before the Tribunal, show cause and take extension”—the only permissible route under the amended Act.
No stay on timeline, applicants directed to Tribunal
Justice Datta noted that earlier proceedings did not stay the six-month period under Section 3B. He said the applicants must place evidence on record if they disputed the Union’s claim that the portal was fully functional.
The Bench said a blanket extension from the Court would also help those who had not acted in time. It added that once an applicant approached the Tribunal, any delay in the Tribunal’s decision would work in that applicant’s favour.