Waqf Act Amendments Challenged in Supreme Court: MPs Allege Religious Discrimination

New Delhi, India – The recently passed Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has run into immediate legal headwinds, with two Members of Parliament approaching the Supreme Court of India to challenge its constitutional validity. Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslim een (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi have filed separate petitions asserting that the amendments are discriminatory against the Muslim community and infringe upon their fundamental rights.

The contentious bill, which seeks to amend the Waqf Act of 1995, was passed by the Rajya Sabha after a prolonged debate late Thursday night, despite significant opposition. It now awaits Presidential assent to become law. However, even before this final step, the legal battle has commenced, signaling a potentially protracted judicial review of legislation that has ignited fervent debate and accusations of religious bias.

Constitutional Rights at Stake: Petitioners Cite Equality, Religious Freedom, and Property Rights

Both petitions vehemently argue that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill violates several fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. MP Mohammad Jawed , who also served on the Joint Parliamentary Committee that reviewed the bill, has articulated in his petition, filed through advocate Anas Tanwir, that the amendments represent a "blatant violation of the fundamental rights of Muslim s."

Specifically , Jawed contends that the bill contravenes:

Article 14 (Right to Equality): The petition argues that the law discriminates against Muslim s by imposing restrictions on Waqf institutions that are not applied to other religious endowments, such as Hindu and Sikh trusts. It highlights the disparity in self-regulation, stating, "while Hindu and Sikh religious trusts continue to enjoy a degree of self-regulation, the amendments to the Wakf Act, 1995 disproportionately increases state intervention in Waqf affairs." This differential treatment, the petition argues, introduces "arbitrary classifications that lack a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved, making it impermissible under the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness."

Article 25 (Freedom to Practice Religion): A key point of contention is the introduction of restrictions on the creation of Waqfs based on the duration of a person's religious practice. Jawed 's petition asserts that "such a limitation is unfounded in Islamic law, custom or precedent and infringes upon the fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Article 25." Furthermore, it points out the discriminatory impact on recent converts to Islam who wish to dedicate property for religious or charitable purposes, arguing this also violates Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

Article 26 (Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs): The amendment mandating the inclusion of non- Muslim members in Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council is presented as an "unwarranted interference in religious governance." The petition draws a stark contrast with Hindu religious endowments, which remain exclusively managed by Hindus under various state enactments. The removal of the concept of "Waqf by User," which previously allowed properties to attain Waqf status through long-standing religious use, is also cited as a violation of Article 26, limiting the Waqf Tribunal's ability to recognize Waqf properties based on historical usage.

Article 29 (Protection of Interests of Minorities): While not explicitly detailed in the provided sources how Article 29 is violated, it is implied that the discriminatory nature of the law and the perceived undermining of Muslim religious autonomy are seen as detrimental to the interests of the Muslim minority community.

Article 300A (Right to Property): The amendments are alleged to undermine property rights by expanding state control over Waqf assets and limiting the ability of individuals to dedicate property for religious purposes. The petition argues that "by expanding state control over Waqf assets, limiting the ability of individuals to dedicate property for religious purposes, and subjecting Waqf properties to heightened scrutiny, the Act goes against the Supreme Court’s judgment that transferring control of religious property to secular authorities is an infringement of religious and property rights."

Owaisi Echoes Concerns, Warns of "Tyranny of the Majority"

AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi , represented by advocate Nizam Pasha , has similarly challenged the Bill, emphasizing that Waqfs are integral to the practice of Islam and deserve constitutional protection. Owaisi has been a vocal critic of the bill throughout its parliamentary journey, even staging a symbolic protest by tearing a copy of the legislation in Parliament, drawing a parallel to Mahatma Gandhi 's civil disobedience.

In his petition, Owaisi reportedly urged the Supreme Court to act as a "sentinel on the qui vive" to protect minority rights against what he termed the "tyranny of the majority" in the current political climate. This statement underscores the political undertones of the legal challenge, reflecting concerns about the legislative process and the potential marginalization of minority interests.

Key Provisions and Contentions: State Intervention vs. Community Autonomy

The core of the dispute revolves around the extent of state intervention in the management of Waqf properties. The government, in its defense of the amendments, claims the changes are aimed at enhancing regulation and transparency within Waqf administration, ostensibly for better governance and to prevent mismanagement of these religious endowments. The Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025, indeed seeks to revise the Waqf Act, 1995, which defines the roles of Waqf Boards, Tribunals, and administrative structures governing Waqf properties.

However, critics, including the petitioner MPs and various Muslim organizations, argue that the amendments significantly increase state control, eroding the autonomy of the Muslim community in managing its religious affairs. They contend that the bill introduces a level of state interference that is not comparable to the governance structures of other religious institutions in India, thus creating a discriminatory legal framework.

One of the contentious provisions is the shift in key administrative functions, such as determining the nature of Waqf properties, from the Waqf Board to the District Collector. This transfer of power from religious institutions to government officials is seen as a dilution of Waqf management autonomy. Furthermore, changes to the composition and powers of Waqf Tribunals, allegedly reducing the representation of individuals with expertise in Islamic law, raise concerns about the fairness and religious sensitivity of dispute resolution in Waqf matters.

Legal and Political Ramifications: Supreme Court's Role Anticipated

The petitions filed by Jawed and Owaisi set the stage for a crucial legal battle in the Supreme Court. The apex court's interpretation of the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Bill will have significant ramifications for the administration of Waqf properties in India, and more broadly, for the balance between state regulation and religious autonomy for minority communities.

The case is likely to delve into the principles of secularism, religious freedom, and equality before the law, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court will need to assess whether the amendments indeed create an impermissible discriminatory framework against Muslim s, as alleged by the petitioners, and whether the increased state intervention is justified and proportionate, or an infringement on fundamental rights.

The outcome of this legal challenge will be closely watched by legal professionals, religious communities, and political observers alike, as it carries the potential to reshape the legal landscape concerning religious endowments and minority rights in India. The Supreme Court’s decision will not only determine the fate of the Waqf Amendment Bill but also set important precedents for future legislation and judicial interpretation in matters involving religion and state.