New Delhi: In response to the Supreme Court’s interim ruling on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, former Law Minister Ashwani Kumar described it as a “normal procedure” that the court had used when considering significant cases.

“This is a standard procedure that the court adopts when hearing an important matter,” Kumar told ANI. This only indicates that due to the significant constitutional law issues addressed, the Supreme Court will consider the case at a later time, either after seven days have passed or after the pleadings have been filed.

In order to prevent the petition from becoming infructuous, the Court, acting on the Solicitor General of India’s assurance, has stated that until the next hearing date, which is seven days away, you will not alter the composition of the Waqf Council or Waqf Board, you will not notify users of Waqf land, and you will not notify the registered Waqf plan. These three main issues were contested.

He further said that the order was issued with the Solicitor General’s approval and that the Supreme Court’s views are a typical part of the Court’s procedure.

This is a typical aspect of the court’s operations. It is also impossible to declare that the Union of India has won or lost a point or that the petitioners have won or lost. It is crucial to remember that the Solicitor General has given his approval for this order. It is predicated on this solicitor general’s voluntary pledge that we won’t make specific choices.

Thus, the goal is to clarify the significance of the Supreme Court Centre judgment. It is only a directive to ensure a more thorough hearing on the subsequent hearing date after the submission of the Government of India’s comprehensive answer. In the meantime, the Solicitor General, speaking on behalf of the Centre, promised that no appointments would be made to the Waqf Boards or Councils and that Waqf properties would not be de-notified until the next hearing when the Supreme Court heard several petitions contesting the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on Thursday.

The Solicitor General’s promise that no appointments to the Waqf Board or Council would be made until the next hearing was noted by the SC earlier on Thursday. The court also decided that no existing Waqf properties would be identified, even those that have been disclosed via notice or registered by the user.

According to the Solicitor General, the Waqf Act is a piece of law that is taken into consideration, and the Center has received several comments about the Waqf categorization of property. He requested a week to respond, adding that it would be harsh to stay the whole act.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that there cannot be a total suspension of the Act at this time and said that it has previously cited some parts of the statute as favorable. The court also said that while the case is being considered, it does not want to change the present situation.

The bench restated that as long as the case is still before court review, the goal is to keep things as they are.

The act was challenged in a number of petitions submitted to the highest court, arguing that it infringed the basic rights of the Muslim minority and was discriminatory against them.

On April 5, President Droupadi Murmu signed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 into law after it was approved by Parliament after contentious discussions in both houses.