Supreme Court to hear plea against order upholding rejection of waqf suits for non-payment of court fees
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea challenging a Gujarat High Court order that upheld the rejection of waqf suits for non-payment of
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a plea challenging a Gujarat High Court order that upheld the rejection of waqf suits for non-payment of court fees. The High Court passed the order in January this year by relying on its December 2025 ruling that waqf institutions were not exempt from paying court fees before the State Waqf Tribunal. The plea filed in the apex court by Ahmedabad Sunni Muslim Waqf Committee came up for hearing before a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi.
Also read: What is the significance of Supreme Court’s interim order on 2025 Waqf law? "Issue notice, returnable in six weeks," the bench said in its order passed on August 7. The committee, in its plea filed in the top court through advocate Ejaz Maqbool, has said the High Court has failed to appreciate and consider that neither the Waqf Act nor the Rules provide for payment of court fees. "Therefore, it is evident that both the Act and the Rules expressly exclude payment of court fees," the plea said.
On December 17, 2025, the High court dismissed a batch of pleas filed by the waqf institutions challenging the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal's orders rejecting proceedings over disputes relating to waqf properties on account of insufficient court fees. The High Court had held that there was no blanket exemption or waiver available to waqf institutions from payment of court fees for proceedings instituted under Section 83 of the Waqf Act before the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal. The High Court rejected the contention that court fees were not payable because proceedings under Section 83 are initiated through an application rather than a plaint or a suit.
It held that such proceedings involve the adjudication of rights relating to waqf properties, including landlord-tenant disputes, and were conducted in a manner akin to civil suits with written statements, framing of issues evidence and final adjudication.
The BriefWire