The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has ignited a fierce legal and political debate in India, with its constitutional validity set to be scrutinized by the Supreme Court on April 16, 2025. This contentious legislation, amending the Waqf Act of 1995, seeks to reform the governance of waqf properties—Islamic endowments dedicated to religious or charitable purposes—but has been accused of infringing on religious freedom and equality. Over a dozen petitions, filed by political leaders, Muslim organizations, and others, challenge the Act’s provisions, arguing they undermine minority rights. As a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna prepares to hear the case, this article explores the Act’s background, the petitioners’ arguments, the government’s defense, and the broader implications of a case poised to shape India’s secular and legal landscape.
In This Article:
Background of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
The Waqf Act of 1995 regulates approximately 8.7 lakh waqf properties, including mosques, graveyards, and agricultural land, valued at ₹1.2 lakh crore. The 2025 amendment, passed by the Lok Sabha (288-232 votes) on April 3 and the Rajya Sabha (128-95 votes) on April 4, became law on April 5 after presidential assent and took effect on April 8. Key changes include mandating non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, abolishing ‘waqf by user’ (land designated as waqf through long-term use), and empowering District Collectors to resolve disputes over waqf status. The Act also removes Muslim law expertise requirements from Waqf Tribunals, allows High Court appeals against their decisions, and restricts waqf creation to Muslims practicing for five years, while barring claims on ASI monuments or Scheduled Tribal areas. The government touts these reforms as promoting transparency and inclusivity, but critics argue they encroach on religious autonomy.
The Petitions and Their Arguments
Petitions challenging the Act have been filed by prominent figures like Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM), Mohammad Jawed (Congress), Amanatullah Khan (AAP), Manoj Jha (RJD), Mahua Moitra (TMC), and Vijay (TVK), alongside organizations such as Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Their core contentions include:
- Violation of Religious Freedom: Under Articles 25 and 26, petitioners argue that mandating non-Muslims in waqf governance interferes with the Muslim community’s right to manage its religious institutions, a privilege afforded to Hindu and Sikh endowments.
- Breach of Equality: The Act’s unique restrictions on waqf, absent in other religious laws, are said to violate Article 14’s guarantee of equal treatment.
- Threat to Property Rights: Enhanced state control, particularly the Collector’s authority, risks arbitrary reclassification of waqf properties, infringing on Article 300A.
- Arbitrary Provisions: Scrapping ‘waqf by user’ endangers undocumented historic sites, while the five-year practice rule lacks basis in Islamic law.
Owaisi has called the Act a “brazen violation,” and Jamiat terms it an attack on religious identity. A distinct plea by advocate Hari Shankar Jain seeks to exclude Hindus from the Act’s jurisdiction, advocating civil court oversight for non-Muslim disputes.
Government’s Defense and Support
The Union Government, through a caveat filing, signals a robust defense, with Law Minister Kiren Rijiju emphasizing the Act’s parliamentary scrutiny. Six BJP-ruled states—Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Maharashtra—support the Act, arguing it curbs Waqf Board overreach, such as property claims under the 1995 Act. Intervenors like Hindu Sena’s Vishnu Gupta praise the reforms for aligning with constitutional clarity and protecting tribal and heritage sites.
Political and Social Context
The Act has polarized India, with opposition parties like Congress and DMK labeling it “anti-Muslim” for centralizing control and reducing Waqf Board autonomy. Protests in states like West Bengal and Manipur reflect public unrest. Supporters, however, highlight digitization and women’s inclusion as progressive steps. The timing, amid electoral tensions, fuels accusations of political motives.
What to Expect from the Hearing
The April 16 hearing will likely determine whether the petitions warrant detailed scrutiny or interim relief, such as staying the Act’s implementation. Given Chief Justice Khanna’s methodical approach, notices may be issued to the government, with a larger bench possible if constitutional issues deepen. Petitioners seek urgency to protect undocumented waqf sites.
Implications
This case tests India’s commitment to secularism and minority rights. A ruling could redefine religious endowment governance, impacting diverse communities, and clarify the judiciary’s role in reviewing divisive laws. The outcome will shape trust in institutions and India’s pluralistic framework.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act case is a critical juncture for India’s legal and social fabric. As the Supreme Court weighs competing claims of reform and rights, its decision will resonate beyond waqf, influencing how religious autonomy and state power coexist in a diverse democracy.
-By Manoj H
