SC waqf-fee fight heads to August

The Ahmedabad Sunni Muslim Waqf Committee has moved the Supreme Court against Gujarat High Court rulings that said waqf institutions don’t get a blanket pass on court fees before the Gujarat State Waqf Tribunal. The special leave petition — SLP (Civil) No. 18353 of 2026, filed on April 20 — was listed on June 1, with Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar on the roster, and then set to be taken up on August 7 after petitioners sought time, according to the court’s own cause list and subsequent legal reporting.

What’s at stake is simple and not small: the High Court, in a December 17, 2025 judgment, held there is no across-the-board fee exemption for proceedings under Section 83 of the Waqf Act — they function like civil suits and attract fees unless a law or notification says otherwise. A later batch in January 2026 was reportedly dismissed on the same reasoning. The petitioner’s stand in the Supreme Court pushes the opposite: that neither the Act nor the Rules provide for court fees. That is their submission, not the Supreme Court’s view.

Two cautions the national noise merchants won’t add: first, the only bench we can prove from the record is the Narasimha–Aravind Kumar listing on June 1; second, there’s no official August 7 order on the public docket confirming that the Court issued notice or to whom. A legal report quotes Justice Narasimha asking, “How can there be an exemption? What is the law which allows you to take an exemption from court fees?” That question is on the record. A six‑week notice order isn’t — yet.

For Telangana, the principle matters beyond Gujarat. Waqf properties and their protection aren’t a Gujarat-only problem, and clarity on fees at tribunals affects how fast disputes move and who can actually afford to bring them. The BJP-led Centre wrote the Waqf Act and then left its tribunals underpowered; Congress states like Karnataka are busy elsewhere until a headline arrives. Delhi will find a camera. The filings will find their own lawyers.

What we can say today: the SLP exists, it challenges Gujarat’s no‑blanket‑exemption line, it was on the Supreme Court’s list June 1 and slated again for August 7, and the petitioner wants fees off the table at the tribunal stage. What we won’t do is pretend an August 7 order says “notice in six weeks” without the paper. The Court will speak for itself; the party spin has already tried.