Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Transfer Petition Challenging Waqf Act 1995 From Delhi HC

While refusing to transfer a writ petition challenging the Waqf Act 1995 pending before Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court today (July 22) expressed concerns over the trend of filing petitions for getting sheer newspaper publicity.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria was hearing a transfer petition seeking the transfer of the writ petition challenging the Waqf Act, 1995 from the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court.

Lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed the petition.

At the outset, the CJI remarked that the matter is already pending before the Court and that then CJI Sanjiv Khanna had already set timelines for admitting the writ petitions, beyond which any fresh petition on the same grounds would not be heard for the sake of avoiding repetition. The bench led by CJI Khanna had, however, allowed such fresh petitioners to file interventions in the pending batch of 11 petitions.

CJI Gavai said: "The issue is already pending before this court. Why do you want more petitions?"

Upadhyay, appearing in person, reverted, " I was the first person to challenge this."

The CJI pointed out that petitions are frequently being filed for the sake of getting publicity. He also referred to yesterday's discussion in court on the influence of “media narratives” on judicial proceedings.

"You are always the first. What is the hurry to rush to the Court? Only after seeing the newspapers. Petitions are nowadays being filed only for newspapers, and what was the Ld SG refer to the other day?Some YouTube channels,” CJI told Upadhyaya.

The lawyer stressed that it was only after his petition that it was known about how "waqf board has grabbed 40 lakh acres of land".

To which the CJI remarked, "So the Parliament has enacted the law only after noticing your petition? ....see whatever we will decide in that matter; it will cover the others. If you want, you can file an intervention in that."

The bench, refusing to entertain the transfer petition any further, ordered, "We are not inclined to entertain the prayer."

Before the Delhi High Court, Upadhyay filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14 of the Waqf Act, 1995 as amended by Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 on the grounds that they are manifestly arbitrary, irrational & offend Article 14, 15, 21, 25, 27.

Similar petition challenging the Waqf Act is also pending in the Supreme Court. That is tagged along with the petitions challenging the 2025 Amendment Act.

Case Details : ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.| T.P.(C) No. 1652/2025