Courts can interfere in laws only if there are glaring lapses, says SC

There is always a presumption of constitutionality in favour of any law and petitioners have to make a "strong and glaring case" for the judiciary to interfere, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday as it heard petitions against the Waqf Amendment Act.

- Abraham Thomas

The top court's observations came on a day petitioners challenging the 2025 law argued that it held the potential to "resurrect" suits and disputes questioning the religious character of mosques, and the Centre defended the law, saying waqf by its very nature was a "secular concept" and could not be stayed given the "presumption of constitutionality" in its favour.

The Centre also urged the top court to confine the hearing to three issues, including the power to denotify properties declared as "waqf by courts, waqf-by-user or waqf by deed".

"There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, presumption of constitutionality will be there," Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said when senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners challenging the law, began his submissions.

The law, which received presidential assent on April 5 after being passed by both the Houses of Parliament earlier, makes sweeping changes to the governance and recognition of Islamic charitable endowments, or waqfs. The Centre has defended the amendments as necessary to curb corruption, enhance transparency and ensure better regulatory oversight. But several political parties, religious organisations and civil society groups have mounted a strong push back, calling the law a direct infringement on religious autonomy and an unconstitutional imposition on the Muslim community.

The petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenge the law on many grounds, alleging it undermines the fundamental rights of Muslims and erodes age-old waqf traditions. Petitioners have particularly targeted provisions such as the removal of "waqf by user"-a principle that historically allowed recognition of religious endowments created through usage or oral tradition --and the invalidation of oral waqfs unless backed by formal deeds.