The central government informed the Supreme Court that while Waqf is an Islamic concept, it is not a mandatory aspect of the religion. During the ongoing hearings regarding petitions challenging the validity and functioning of Waqf laws, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the government. He stated to the bench that although Waqf is rooted in Islam, it is not an obligatory component. He emphasized that charity is a characteristic shared by all religions, noting that even Christians can engage in such practices. Furthermore, he pointed out that Hinduism has a structured system for charity, and the Sikh community also follows similar traditions.

Mehta refuted claims regarding Waqf institutions being over a century old, questioning, "Where will we find documents for properties from 100 years ago? It is misleading to suggest that such documents were never necessary. If you claim Waqf status from over a century ago, at least provide records from the last five years." He asserted that documentation has always been crucial and linked to the sanctity of legal processes. According to him, the 1923 Act stipulates that if documents exist, they must be presented; otherwise, any information regarding their origin should be disclosed.

In defense of the presence of non-Muslim members on the Waqf board, Mehta argued that their involvement does not impact religious activities. He questioned, "What difference does it make if there are two non-Muslim members? They do not interfere in religious matters." He clarified that the role of the Waqf board is administrative, managing properties and maintaining accounts, which are also subject to audits.