CJI BR Gavai on Waqf Pleas: ‘Courts Won’t Interfere Without Strong Case’

Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Monday issued a significant observation on pleas challenging the Waqf Act, asserting that courts do not intervene in legislative matters unless a strong constitutional case is made. The remark came during a Supreme Court hearing on multiple petitions targeting Waqf-related laws.

On May 20, 2025, during a Supreme Court hearing on challenges to the Waqf Act, Chief Justice Gavai made a pivotal remark, stating that courts do not interfere with laws unless there is a compelling constitutional reason. This comes amid increasing legal scrutiny over the Waqf Board’s authority and land-related disputes across India.

CJI Gavai addressed petitioners directly, emphasizing, “You have to make out a strong case. Courts don’t interfere unless there’s a clear violation of constitutional provisions.” The Chief Justice made it clear that mere dissatisfaction with a statute does not justify judicial interference.

Multiple public interest litigations (PILs) have been filed challenging the Waqf Act and the powers granted to the Waqf Board regarding land registration, property rights, and disputes. Petitioners argue that the law discriminates against non-Muslims and allows for unchecked control of land by religious boards.

Some of the petitioners have alleged that vast tracts of land have been classified as Waqf properties without adequate evidence or notification. They claim this infringes upon private property rights and lacks a transparent legal process.

The court has not yet ruled on the matter but has cautioned against generalized attacks on religious statutes without solid legal grounding. CJI Gavai’s comments set a clear tone: constitutional challenges must be substantive and not based solely on public sentiment or political discourse.

The case has attracted attention from various political quarters, with right-leaning groups calling for a review of the Waqf Act, alleging institutional bias. Legal experts and constitutional scholars are watching the case closely, noting its potential implications for religious and property rights jurisprudence.

On social media, the CJI’s remark has sparked debate. Some users hailed the judiciary for maintaining its independence and resisting politicization, while others urged the court to thoroughly examine the legality of the Waqf system.

Several states have witnessed controversies over Waqf properties in recent years. The issue has become a flashpoint in political campaigns, with some alleging illegal land grabs facilitated through Waqf listings.