Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Waqf Muttawalli's Plea Against Umeed Portal; Allows To Raise Grievances Before Authority

The Supreme Court on Friday (January 16) refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Waqf Muttawalli alleging that there were technical glitches in the UMEED Portal of the Central Government for the uploading of the details of the Waqf properties.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi however, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to raise grievances. "We see no ground to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner may be well advised to approach the prescribed authority for clarification or addressing of grievances for which liberty is granted," the bench observed in the order.

At the outset, the bench asked Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy why the petitioner cannot approach the High Court.  

"Why cannot you go to the High Court?" CJI Kant asked. Guruswamy said that the High Courts won't take up the matter since the challenge to the 2025 amendments is pending before the Supreme Court. The CJI, however, said that the petitioner was raising certain "administrative difficulties" and not any substantive challenge to the provisions, which can be raised before the High Court.

Guruswamy said that apart from the technical difficulties, the petitioner also challenged the classification made in the Waqf Rules, whereby the category of 'Waqf by survey' is brought under the 'Waqf by user' category. She submitted that the portal does not have any option of 'Waqf by survey' in the drop-down menu.

Justice Bagchi said that the Ministry has clarified that the 'Waqf by survey' category is subsumed under the 'Waqf by user' category. "That is the issue," Guruswamy said.

"That cannot be a challenge on glitch. That can be a challenge on the ground whether there can be a further classification or not. But the issue is, it is not a difficult situation for your client to upload details under the Waqf by user category. You can always do it by raising an objection that it is not a Waqf by user," Justice Bagchi said. Justice Bagchi added that the issue of classification can be considered in the other writ petitions pending in the Supreme Court. "Your main thrust is portal is dysfunctional as far as your client is concerned, that your client does not know how a waqf by survey is to be uploaded. On the other hand, your pleading shows that you have put it up under the Waqf by user category," Justice Bagchi said.

Guruswamy said that uploading in the 'Waqf by user' category will create other issues. Justice Bagchi, pointing out that the Waqf in the present case is a registered Waqf, said, "You should not be having any difficulty because you are classified with other waqfs, since you have registration. So, it would not make any difference. You are a registered Waqf. There is no dilution of rights by putting your case under Waqf by user," Justice Bagchi said.

When Guruswamy said as per 2025 amendment, all Waqfs have to re-register, Justice Bagchi disagreed, saying that the registration was a pre-existing requirement even before 2025, and the 2025 amendment only required the uploading of the data on the portal. "Registration and uploading are different. Uploading is just a data entry," Justice Bagchi said.

The writ petition was filed by a Mutawalli from Madhya Pradesh challenging the enforceability of the digital uploading mandate under Section 3B of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, alleging that the Union government's Umeed Portal is structurally defective and technologically unfit for registering waqf properties. The writ petition, filed under Article 32, argues that the portal notified under the UMEED Rules, 2025 is incompatible with the statutory framework governing waqfs in several States and that its persistent technical glitches have made compliance impossible.

The petitioner submitted that the difficulties are more acute in Madhya Pradesh, where almost all waqfs are Survey and Gazette-notified properties under Sections 4 and 5 of the Waqf Act. The category of Waqf by User rarely exist in the State. However, the Umeed Portal does not permit the entry of Survey or Gazette waqfs and compels the user to select from modes that are inapplicable in law. The petitioner claims that uploading under an incorrect category would amount to an unlawful declaration, contrary to statutory requirements and the fiduciary duties of a Mutawalli.

The petition sought a declaration that the Umeed Portal, in its present form, is structurally defective, technologically non-functional and incapable of registering Survey and Gazette notified waqfs, and therefore cannot be enforced against the petitioner or similarly placed Mutawallis.

It also sought a writ of mandamus directing the Union Government to rectify all structural and technical defects or to create a dedicated upload mechanism specifically for Survey and Gazette waqfs in Madhya Pradesh.

The petitioner also sought directions to remove the mandatory requirement of selecting a mode of waqf in Section 5.1 of the portal's user interface or to introduce an “Other or Survey or Gazette or Statutory Waqf” option so that accurate entries can be uploaded. Further, the petition requested that no penal, coercive or disqualifying action be taken for non-uploading of waqf details until the portal is corrected.

In December last year, the Supreme Court had refused to accept pleas to extend the time to upload Waqf details on the Umeed portal, and asked the Waqfs to approach the jurisdictional Waqf Tribunals seeking extension of time individually.

The petition has been filed through Advocates Vaibhav Choudhary and Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi

Case : HASHMAT ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS | Diary No. 70413 / 2025