Key Highlights
- The petitioner may be well advised to approach the prescribed authority for clarification or addressing of grievances,” the Bench observed.
- At the outset, the Court questioned why the petitioner had directly approached the Supreme Court instead of the High Court.
- Responding, Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that High Courts were reluctant to entertain such matters as challenges to the 2025 amendments to the waqf law were already pending before the Supreme Court.
- The Chief Justice, however, noted that the petition essentially raised issues of “administrative difficulties” rather than a substantive challenge to the statutory provisions, which could be addressed by the High Court or the concerned authorities.
- Guruswamy further argued that apart from technical difficulties, the petitioner was aggrieved by the classification under the Waqf Rules, where the category of “waqf by survey” was treated as part of “waqf by user,” and that the UMEED Portal did not provide a separate option for “waqf by survey” in its drop-down menu.