SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO HEAR WAQF MUTTAWALLI'S CHALLENGE TO UMEED PORTAL; DIRECTS GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL BEFORE COMPETENT AUTHORITY:

The Supreme Court on January 16, 2026, declined to entertain a writ petition filed by a Waqf Muttawalli from Madhya Pradesh, who alleged technical glitches and structural defects in the Central Government's UMEED Portal, which is used for uploading details of Waqf properties. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that there were no grounds to entertain the petition under Article 32. The bench granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the prescribed or concerned authorities for clarification, addressing grievances, or seeking necessary redressal.

At the hearing, the bench initially questioned Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, representing the petitioner, on why the matter could not be raised before the jurisdictional High Court. The CJI noted that the grievances primarily involved administrative difficulties rather than a substantive constitutional challenge to the provisions, which could appropriately be addressed by the High Court. Guruswamy explained that High Courts had been reluctant to take up such issues, given that broader challenges to the 2025 amendments to the Waqf law were already pending before the Supreme Court.

The petition challenged the enforceability of the mandatory digital uploading requirement under Section 3B of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (as amended). The petitioner contended that the UMEED Portal, notified under the UMEED Rules, 2025, was structurally defective, technologically unfit, and incompatible with the statutory framework in several states, particularly Madhya Pradesh. In that state, nearly all Waqfs are Survey and Gazette-notified properties under Sections 4 and 5 of the Waqf Act, with the "Waqf by user" category being rare. The portal reportedly lacked a specific option for "Waqf by survey" in its drop-down menu, forcing users to select inapplicable modes, which the petitioner argued could lead to unlawful declarations and breach fiduciary duties.

Guruswamy highlighted that beyond technical issues, the petitioner objected to the classification under the Waqf Rules, where "Waqf by survey" had been subsumed under "Waqf by user" without a dedicated category. Justice Bagchi responded that the Ministry had clarified this subsumption and emphasized that the core issue was not a genuine glitch preventing uploads. The bench pointed out that the petitioner's own pleadings indicated details had been uploaded under the "Waqf by user" category, and uploading in that manner posed no real difficulty. The court noted that the Waqf in question was already registered, so there would be no dilution of rights by classifying it under "Waqf by user."

When Guruswamy raised concerns that such uploads could create future complications, and argued that the 2025 amendment required re-registration of all Waqfs, Justice Bagchi clarified that registration was a pre-existing statutory obligation, while the amendment merely mandated data uploading on the portal. The bench described uploading as essentially a data entry exercise, distinct from registration.

The bench further observed that questions regarding the classification could be examined in other pending writ petitions challenging the amendments. It stressed that the petitioner's main grievance centered on alleged portal dysfunction preventing proper uploads for "Waqf by survey" properties, yet the available material showed compliance had been achieved under the available category.

This dismissal aligns with the Supreme Court's earlier stance in December 2025, when it refused to extend the six-month deadline for uploading Waqf details on the UMEED Portal and directed affected parties to approach jurisdictional Waqf Tribunals for individual extensions. The decision underscores the Court's preference for administrative remedies in handling operational or technical issues related to the portal, while reserving substantive legal challenges to the amendments for comprehensive hearings.