The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a writ petition filed by a Waqf Mutawalli challenging the functioning of the Central Government’s UMEED Portal, which is used for uploading and digitising details of Waqf properties across India. However, the Court permitted the petitioner to raise grievances before the appropriate administrative authority.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by a Mutawalli from Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner alleged that the UMEED Portal suffers from serious technical and structural defects, making it practically impossible to upload accurate details of Waqf properties, particularly those classified as Survey and Gazette-notified Waqfs.
According to the petitioner, the portal forces users to select the category “Waqf by User”, even in cases where the Waqf has been formally surveyed and notified under statutory provisions of the Waqf Act. This, the petitioner argued, results in incorrect declarations and violates the fiduciary obligations of a Mutawalli.
Observations of the Supreme Court
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the matter.
The Court observed that no exceptional ground had been made out to directly invoke Article 32. Instead, the petitioner was advised to approach the prescribed authorities or the High Court for addressing administrative and technical grievances related to the portal.
The Bench clarified that the issue raised did not amount to a constitutional challenge to the law itself, but rather pertained to administrative difficulties in implementation.
Issue of Classification on the UMEED Portal
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioner, highlighted that the portal does not provide any separate option for “Waqf by Survey”. She argued that placing such Waqfs under the “Waqf by User” category could create legal complications.
Justice Bagchi noted that the Ministry has clarified that Waqf by Survey has been subsumed under the Waqf by User category for the purposes of digital uploading. The Court observed that uploading data under this category does not result in dilution of rights, especially where the Waqf is already registered.
The Bench further stated that disputes relating to classification can be examined in the pending petitions challenging the 2025 amendments to the Waqf framework, and need not be addressed in the present petition.
Registration vs Uploading of Data
The petitioner also argued that the 2025 amendments require re-registration of Waqfs. This submission was rejected by the Court.
Justice Bagchi clarified that registration of Waqfs has always been a statutory requirement, and the 2025 changes merely mandate digital uploading of existing data. Uploading, the Court observed, is a procedural exercise and cannot be equated with fresh registration.
Reliefs Sought by the Petitioner
The petition sought several reliefs, including:
-
A declaration that the UMEED Portal is structurally defective and technologically unfit
-
Directions to create a separate upload mechanism for Survey and Gazette-notified Waqfs
-
Suspension of coercive or penal action for non-uploading until the portal is rectified
-
Introduction of additional classification options on the portal interface
The Court declined to grant these reliefs in the present proceedings.
Final Order
While refusing to entertain the writ petition, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to:
-
Approach the concerned authorities for redressal of grievances
-
Raise classification-related challenges in appropriate pending proceedings
Case Details
Case Title: Hashmat Ali v. Union of India & Ors.
Diary No.: 70413/2025
Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that administrative and technical issues relating to digital governance platforms like the UMEED Portal should first be addressed before statutory authorities, and not directly through Article 32 petitions, unless a clear constitutional violation is shown.
