The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain petitions seeking an extension of the six-month deadline for registration of Waqf properties under the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and directed applicants to approach the Waqf Tribunal for assistance instead. With the Dec. 6 deadline fast approaching, the court’s decision puts the onus squarely on property owners to seek redress through the statutory mechanism created by the amended law.
Why did the Supreme Court refuse to extend the deadline?
A bench of Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that the applicants already had a clear and adequate remedy under the 2025 Act.
“Since the appellant’s remedy is already available with the Waqf Tribunal, they can apply for it by December 6, which we believe is the last date for registering the property,” ANI quoted the court as saying.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary could not intervene when Parliament had expressly created a forum to resolve disputes arising from the registration process.
What concerns did the applicants raise?
Counsel for the petitioners argued that procedural hurdles prevent timely registration. According to them, these went beyond simply uploading details to the UMEED portal.
According to ANI, the petitioners raised issues related to the digitization of Waqf property records, technical glitches in the portal and potential delays in the tribunal’s ability to consider applications before the deadline.
According to the plaintiffs, by the time the Tribunal would have dealt with difficulties related to registration or digitization, the deadline of December 6 would have already passed.
How did the Supreme Court respond to the problem of portal defects?
The court acknowledged that there could be genuine technical problems, but specified that redress should still be sought from the Tribunal.
It said: “If time freezes (on the portal), you cannot be held responsible. If the Tribunal allows you to do so at all, your six months will count and your application will be considered. You do not need permission. If there is a problem, you can always apply before us.”
Thus, the Bench said that technical glitches would not prejudice bona fide applicants if they act through the right legal forum.
What will happen to property owners next?
As the Supreme Court has refused to modify or extend the statutory deadline, applicants must now:
The decision reinforces the Court’s position that the Tribunal is the primary route to redress under the 2025 framework – leaving the deadline effectively intact unless changed by legislative or administrative action.
