New Delhi, Apr 4 (UNI) Within hours of Parliament passing the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court on Friday challenging its constitutional validity.
The Bill introduces several modifications to the Waqf Act of 1995, prompting legal scrutiny and opposition.
The petition has been filed by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, who contends that the amendments violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 25 (freedom to practice religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 29 (minority rights), and 300A (right to property) of the Constitution.
Notably, the Bill is yet to come into force as an Act, pending the President's assent.
Filed through Advocate-on-Record Anas Tanwir, the grounds for challenge in the petition are that the amendments unfairly discriminate against the Muslim community by imposing restrictions not applicable to other religious endowments.
Jawed asserts that while Hindu and Sikh religious trusts enjoy a degree of self-regulation, the new provisions disproportionately increase state intervention in Waqf affairs. This, he claims, violates Article 14 by creating arbitrary classifications lacking a reasonable nexus to the intended objectives, making them impermissible under the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness.
The petitioner also challenges the condition in the Bill requiring a person to have practiced Islam for at least five years before creating a Waqf. He argues that this limitation is "unfounded in Islamic law, custom, or precedent" and infringes upon the fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Article 25. Additionally, the restriction discriminates against recent converts to Islam who wish to dedicate property for religious or charitable purposes, thereby violating Article 15.
The petition raises concerns over the omission of the Waqf-by-User provision, which has been recognized by several judicial decisions, including the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid verdict. Jawed contends that removing this provision disregards established legal principles and limits the Waqf Tribunal's ability to recognize properties as Waqf based on historical usage, violating Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs.
Another key objection is the provision allowing non-Muslims to be included in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. The petitioner terms this as "an unwarranted interference in religious governance," pointing out that Hindu religious endowments are exclusively managed by Hindus under various state laws. He argues that imposing such selective intervention without similar conditions for other religious institutions constitutes an arbitrary classification and violates Articles 14 and 15.
The petition further challenges the Amendment’s provision shifting key administrative functions from the Waqf Board to the District Collector. Jawed argues that transferring control over Waqf properties from religious institutions to government officials undermines the autonomy of Waqf management and contravenes Article 26(d) of the Constitution.
The petition also claims that the amendments infringe upon property rights protected under Article 300A by expanding state control over Waqf assets. It references the Supreme Court's ruling in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay (AIR 1954 SC 388), which held that transferring control of religious property to secular authorities is an infringement of religious and property rights.
The Bill received parliament approval with its passing by the Rajya Sabha at approximately 2:30 AM after an intense 14-hour debate. A similar discussion in the Lok Sabha extended past midnight on Wednesday before the Bill was cleared. UNI SNG SSP