Following several petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, now the NGO Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the law as violating Articles 14, 25, 26 and 300A of the Indian Constitution.
The petition terms the new Act as an "alarming interference" into the religious affairs of the Muslim community, thereby diluting the fundamental propose of waqf which is deeply rooted practice in Quranic references and the Hadith since the time of Prophet Mohammad.
The petition, filed before the Presidential assent was granted on April 5, states that the provisions pose a grave danger to the autonomy and effectiveness of the waqf Board, particularly through the insertion of Section 40, which severely undermines the principles of natural justice enshrined in the Waqf Act, 1995.
Grounds for challenge
1. Substituting of the title to Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development is misleading and contrary to the fundamental purpose of the Act. It is stated in the petition that the substitution of the term waqf is not a neutral change, it is a deliberate attempt to rewrite history and dismantle the cultural legacy of colonised communities.
The term Waqf has deep-rooted religious, historical, and cultural significance, and its erasure reflects a colonial mindset aimed at diluting indigenous legal traditions under the guise of modernization...The Global South is actively engaged in decolonizing its legal and intellectual traditions, yet this legislative change reflects a redundant and regressive colonial sentiments to erase historical legacies and religious symbols under the garb of 'modernization.
While the legislature advocates for restoring 'indigenous institutions' in other spheres, this amendment reinforces colonial language and frameworks. The original title of the principle Act does not create any burden on beneficiaries or the legal community. There is no compelling legal, administrative, or social necessity to replace the term Waqf, a universally recognized concept in both Islamic law and Indian jurisprudence.
2. The amendment arbitrarily interference with the religious affairs of the Muslim community, which similar restrictions do not apply to non-Muslim religious institution, thereby failing the test of fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination.
The inclusion of Non-Muslims in the religious affairs of the Muslim minority is not a step toward 'inclusivity' rather, it dilutes the autonomy of an already underrepresented community in India's institutional framework. The Sachar Committee Report (2006), presents compelling evidence of the abysmal socio-economic status and severe underrepresentation of Muslims in public institutions. In contrast, non-Muslim charitable institutions actively prohibit Muslim participation in their religious affairs, highlighting the discriminatory impact of this amendment.
It is stated that in States like Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, only Hindus are permitted to be members of the Hindu endowment institutions. However, waqf institutions are being targeted which violations principles of neutrality and secular governance.
Furthermore, any forced interference in religious administration risks igniting communal and social unrest, thereby threatening the secular fabric of the Constitution. It is neither justified nor necessary to impose such provisions when no similar demands are being placed on non-Muslim religious institutions. This selective encroachment on minority rights must therefore be struck down in the interest of justice, fairness, and constitutional integrity.
3. The petition has also challenges omission of Section 3(r), which had a provision on waqf by user doctrine. It is stated that this constitutes a deliberate weakening of the legal recognition granting to waqf properties. Further, the petition states that the omission would result in jeopardising the vast tracts of waqf property that have historically served religious and charitable purposes for the Muslim community and other-non Muslim communities as well.
This Hon'ble Court has previously acknowledged and validated this doctrine in M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das(The Ayodhya Verdict). The removal of this provision, therefore, represents an attempt to erode the foundational principles protecting Waqf properties and disrupts the delicate balance between religious autonomy and state oversight.
The omission of Section 3(r) from the principal Act is not only contrary to established judicial precedents but also sets a dangerous precedent for the arbitrary exclusion of long-recognized religious rights. Moreover, the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) has acknowledged that the effect of the deleted provision will apply prospectively, except in cases where disputes already exist. However, this additional proviso opens the floodgates to frivolous litigation, placing an unjust burden on individuals seeking to protect their legitimate rights over Waqf properties. Such an unnecessary amendment encroaches upon rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution, which ensures the protection of property rights.
4. The exclusion of disputed properties from recognition as waqf will escalate frivolous litigation by individuals or entities seeking to challenge existing waqf claims.
Disputes over waqf properties will arise drastically, leading to prolonged legal battles and uncertainty over religious properties. By excluding government properties, the amendment allows the state to take over lands previously recognized as waqf by user. This could affect mosques, dargahs, graveyards, and religious institutions built on lands now considered “government property.” There is also a risk of arbitrary classification of waqf lands as government property to facilitate acquisition.
It is further stated the amendment undermines the long-standing doctrine by placing additional conditions on recognition.
Historically, waqf properties were determined by continuous religious use, not by formal deeds or ownership records. This sudden shift in legal interpretation will weaken the waqf system in a nutshell. The Sachar Committee Report (2006) already highlighted the socio-economic disadvantages faced by Muslims. If waqf properties are excluded based on government claims or disputes, it will lead to a systematic decrease in religious and community assets available for the Muslim community.
The petition adds that the waqf board will face operational difficulties in protecting or managing waqf properties that were once waqf by user. Overall, the petition claims that the amendment violates Articles 25 and 26 as it constitutes an unconstitutional encroachment upon the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.
The petition has been drawn and filed by Adv. Adeel Ahmad (AOR), Adv. Atul Yadav, Adv. M Huzaifa, Adv. Mohammad Mobashshir Aneeq, and Adv. Taqdees Fatima.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/ngo-acpcr-files-petition-in-supreme-court-challenging-waqf-amendment-act-288714
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the political party in power in the State of Tamil Nadu, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.
The petition has been filed through the DMK's Deputy General Secretary A. Raja, Lok Sabha MP, who was also a Member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf Bill. The writ petition was settled by Senior Advocate P Wilson, who is also a Rajya Sabha MP belonging to the DMK.
The petitioner contended that the Amendment Act violates the fundamental rights of about 50 lakh Muslims in Tamil Nadu & 20 crore Muslims in other parts of the country. On March 27, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had passed a resolution urging the Union Government to withdraw the Waqf Amendment Bill.
The party contended that the Act was passed without considering the serious objections raised by its members both in the JPC as well as during the discussion in the Parliament.
Already, several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Act, which received the Presidential assent on Saturday (April 5). Today, the petitions were mentioned before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing. CJI Sanjiv Khanna said that he would consider the request.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/dmk-moves-supreme-court-challenging-waqf-amendment-act-2025-says-it-affects-rights-of-about-20-crore-muslims-288674
Joining the list of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Indian Union Muslim League, a political party, has filed an Article 32 writ petition challenging the Act on grounds of violating Article 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The Act is challenged as an "unconstitutional assault on the religious autonomy and personal rights of the Muslim community in India."
It is contended that the Act imposes arbitrary restrictions and enhances state control on Islamic religious endowments, deviating from the religious essence of waqf.
The 2025 Act's immediate enforcement, post-assent, risks immense and irreparable loss of Waqf properties throughout the length and breadth of the country, erosion of religious rights and severe legal uncertainty. The Petitioner seeks for the Striking down the challenged provisions of the Amendment Act as unconstitutional and the complete Restoration of the 1995 Act's corresponding safeguards and Interim stay of the Amendment Act to prevent implementation pending adjudication.
The provisions are challenged on the following grounds:
1. Section 2: Replaces “Waqf” with “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development,” diluting its religious identity.
2. Section 2A: Introduces a new proviso exempting trusts established by Muslims for purposes similar to Waqf, whether statutorily regulated or not, from the Act's purview, notwithstanding any court judgment, decree, or order, a provision absent in the Waqf Act, 1995.
3. Section 3 (ix) (a): Substitutes Section 3 (r) of the 1995 Act by adding arbitrary restrictions to the right of persons creating a Waqf to only Muslims who shall be "showing or demonstrating that he is practicing Islam for at least five years” and also excluding new converts and non-Muslims from creating Wakf in complete contravention of Islamic Law and practice.
This amendment further adds another arbitrary condition that only those properties can be dedicated to Wakf where “there is no contrivance involved in the dedication of such property” as mandatory for creation of a Wakf.
4. Section 3(ix)(b): Omits the practice of “Waqf by User,” as provided under Section 3 (i) of the 1995 Act negating centuries-old undocumented Waqfs.
The Amendment Act restricts established religious practices (e.g., Oral Waqfs, Waqf by User) and imposes arbitrary and humiliating conditions (demonstrating five-year practice of Islam) not mandated by Shari'ah, violating freedom of religion. This Hon'ble Court in Church of God v. K.K.R. Majestic [(2000) 7 SCC 282], has clearly held that faith-based acts need no duration test.
5. Section 4: Adds Section 3C to the 1995 Act which declares government-claimed properties as non-Waqf property, empowering Collectors to decide the disputes in an arbitrary manner without providing any provision of appeal against the said decision.
Further, the section adds Section 3B to the Principal Act which is an unnecessary imposition and arbitrary condition of filing of Wakf details already registered as Wakf within an extremely short period of six months. The said condition has the potential to remove Wakfs already registered under the Act.
6. Sections 9 & 11: Mandates non-Muslim members in Waqf Council and Wakf Boards, infringing autonomy of Muslims to administer their religious affairs and properties. This is prima facie a grave violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Arbitrary distinctions (e.g., inclusion of non-Muslims in the management of Wakf but not the same for any other faith regarding the management of their religious affairs) and impractical provisions (e.g., six-month digitization, Collector expertise) lack rational basis, rendering them discriminatory and are prima facie discriminatory against Muslims.
The Amendment Act further adds arbitrary, humiliating and derogatory conditions such as “showing or demonstrating” that they are a practicing Muslim on persons seeking to create Wakfs. These conditions are extremely dangerous as they shall pave the way for further discrimination and segregation against Muslims and prima facie violate Articles 14 and 15.
Further, Wakf being an Islamic concept and it being a property dedicated to Allah and for the purpose of charity or religious purposes is now going to be managed by non-Muslims as per the Amendment Act. This is a clear violation of rights to practice religion by Muslims and administer their affairs as guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
7. Section 14: Omits Section 20A of the 1995 Act removing the provision which gives the right to move a no-confidence motion against the Chairperson.
8. Section 18(a): Mandates written deeds, abolishing oral Waqfs. This is against the Islamic Law and principles which give right to persons to create Oral Wakfs and further in violation of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
9. Section 18(d): Grants unfettered power to the Collector on whether a property can be registered as a Wakf without any mechanism or provision of appeal against such decision of the Collector. This is extremely bias and in clear violation of the basic principles of law including the principles of natural justice and the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Amendment Act arbitrarily enhances state control by granting powers regarding registration of Wakfs to officers above the rank of Collector i.e., Designated Officers, Collectors. It further calls for addition of non-Muslim members to Wakf Boards and Council. These amendments clearly usurp the Fundamental Rights of management of religious affairs away from the Muslim Community.
These amendments are in sharp contrast to autonomy enjoyed by every other community to manage their affairs as mandated under Article 26 of the Constitution e.g. Hindus (Guruvayoor Devaswom Act), Sikh (Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee) endowments among others. These amendments also contradict the Sachar Committee Report's call for management to rest within the community.
10. Section 18(f): Imposes an embargo of 6 months on filing of suits, appeals or other legal proceedings for the enforcement of any right on behalf of any wakf which has not been registered as per the Amendment Act. This amendment is arbitrary and imposes unnecessary restrictions and an extremely short period of 6 months on the rights of persons to file legal proceedings before the competent courts.
11. Section 20: Omits Section 40 of the 1995 Act, stripping Boards of power to determine Waqf status. The same is arbitrary and discriminatory since other religious endowments enjoy finality of order which has been taken away in a discriminatory manner from Wakf Board.
12. Section 40A: Applies the Limitation Act to Section 107 of the 1995 Act, threatening the perpetual status of Wakf as mandated in Islamic Law and encouraging encroachers upon Wakf properties.
13. Section 41: Omits Sections 108 (good-faith protection) and 108A (overriding effect) from the 1995 Act.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/unconstitutional-assault-on-religious-autonomy-iuml-moves-supreme-court-challenging-waqf-amendment-act-2025-288651
The petitions filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 were mentioned before the Chief Justice of India today seeking urgent listing.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the petition filed by Maulana Arshad Madani, the President of the Islamic cleric's body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna asked Sibal why the oral mentioning is being made when there is a system in place to seek urgent listing by sending of email. CJI asked Sibal to move a mentioning letter. When Sibal said that the same has already been done, CJI said that he would do the needful after examining it this afternoon.
"All the urgent matters, including (inaudible) will be placed before me in the afternoon....why are you mentioning when we have a system in place?" CJI said.
When Sibal informed that he had sent the letter for mentioning, CJI said that he would examine them in the afternoon and do the needful
"It will be placed before me in the afternoon, I will do the needful," CJI said.
Advocate Nizam Pasha mentioned the petition filed by Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi.
Notably, the Impugned Act was given Presidential Assent on April 5 after the Parliament passed it on April 4 with hours of discussion. Kerala Sunni scholars' body Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema on April 6 also filed a writ petition challenging the Act.
Apart from the present challenge to the Act, 3 other petitions had also been filed challenging the Waqf Bill before it got the Assent of the President. These petitions were filed by Amanatullah Khan, Member of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, ˘belonging to the Aam Aadmi Party, Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and the NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights.
Grounds Of Challenge By Arshad Madani
The petition, filed by Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, challenges various provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, terming them unconstitutional and destructive to the waqf administration and jurisprudence in India. It seeks an interim direction from the Court directing the Union of India to defer the issuance of notification under Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, which would operationalise the legislation. It is contended that once notified, several waqf properties would be vulnerable due to the mandatory timelines for uploading details on the Portal and Database envisaged under the amendment, threatening the very existence of a large number of historical waqfs—particularly those created by oral dedication or without formal deeds.
The petition takes strong exception to the removal of the concept of "waqf by user," which has long been a rule of evidence in Indian waqf jurisprudence and was specifically recognized by the Supreme Court in the Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid Judgment.
The removal undermines the lived realities of Islamic charitable practices and disenfranchises long-standing community institutions such as mosques and graveyards, many of which lack formal documentation due to their historical origins. It also challenges Section 3D and 3E added by way of an amendment moved by Shri Kiren Rijiju during Lok Sabha debates on 02 April which stipulate that Waqf-declaration over ASI-protected monuments would be invalid and no waqf could be created for properties of Scheduled Scheduled Tribes.
Further, the petition challenges the recomposition of both the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards, where prior requirements mandating Muslim-majority membership have been diluted or entirely removed. This, the petition argues, is an unconstitutional interference in the religious community's right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and property. It also challenges the removal of a similar requirement for the CEO of the Boards to be Muslims.
A prominent organization of Kerala-based Sunni Islamic scholars and clerics, Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, which received the Presidential assent yesterday.
The Act, which makes sweeping changes to the Waqf Act 1995 in relation to the nature and administration of Islamic charitable dedications, has been questioned as violating the fundamental rights to equality(Article, to practice religion (Article 25), the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs (Article 26) etc. It is also contended that the amendments are manifestly arbitrary and discriminatory.
The petitioner-organization voices an apprehension that the cumulative effect of the amendments will be to "deprive the Muslim community of large tract of waqf properties."
The petitioner contends that the amendments do not contribute to the better administration of Waqfs; rather, they take away from the very essence of the concept of Waqf.
The specific grounds of challenge and arguments raised by the petitioner are as follows :
Elimination of Waqf by User
The amendment Act omits the concept of 'Waqf by User' by amending Section (r). As per Islamic law, a specific deed is not necessary to create a Waqf. Large percentage of Waqfs in India do not have any deed as they were created centuries ago and have been in use since time immemorial. The concept of 'Waqf by user' has been judicially accepted through several case laws, including the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case verdict.
As a result of deleting this 'Waqf by user' from statute now anybody can challenge the characteristics of these age-old Waqfs and claim these properties to be private property or government property.
Inclusion of non-Muslims in Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards
The amendments mandate the inclusion of two non-Muslim members, excluding the ex-officio members, in the Central Council and the State Boards. This is an unconstitutional interference in the religious community's right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and property. The petition also challenges the removal of a similar requirement that the CEO of the Board must be a Muslim.
Government made a judge in its own cause
The exception is taken to Section 3C of the Act, as per which a Government property declared as Waqf will not be deemed as a Waqf. An officer notified by the Government has been authorised to adjudicate the dispute under Section 3C. Till the said officer decides the issue, the property cannot be used as a Waqf.
Thus, the Government can judge its own cause, which results in a biased and partial dispute resolution mechanism. Also, the proviso that till a final decision, such a property would not be a Waqf is also questioned.
"This provision is blatantly contrary to the settled legal principles regarding interim relief in civil law. The settled law is that interim arrangement during pendency of a dispute shall be either in favour of status quo or to be decided on the basis on balance of convenience in each case. It is also to be noted herein that there is no time frame prescribed in this provision for the designated officer to conclude the inquiry and submit his report. Thus the officer can keep the inquiry pending for any longer time and the concerned property will remain ceased to be a waqf property during that period. Such a statutory provision is against all settled legal principles and blatantly arbitrary," the petitioner says.
Unreasonable requirement of information from Waqfs
It is contended that Section 3B imposes an unreasonable burden on the Waqfs to file several details on the central portal, which include name and address of creator of the Waqf, mode and date of creation.
The petitioner contended that compliance with such a requirement is impossible for waqfs that are more than a century old. It is alleged that there is a mala fide intention to make the registration of the waqfs unfeasible and non-viable.
Restrictions on creation of Waqf
The condition that only a person practising Islamic faith for at least 5 years can create Waqfs has been called into question. It is stated that there is no straitjacket formula or basis on which the Government can determine as to whether a person is a practising Muslim or not.
The stipulation that waqf-alal-aulad should not deny inheritance rights is challenged as an unreasonable State interference in a person's right to manage one's own private property.
Waqfs can't be created over ASI-protected monuments
The petitioner challenges Section 3D arguing that declaring an existing waqf property as void because it is an ASI-protected monument is unsustainable.Also, Section 3E is challenged as a blatant attempt to deprive Muslim members of Scheduled Tribes under the Fifth or Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India from exercising their rights Wakifs of various waqf properties.
AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MP Mohammed Jawed, Delhi AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Jamit Ulema President Maulana Arshad Madani have filed petitions in the SC against the Act,
The petition has been filed by AoR Zulfikar Ali PS. .
The President of Islamic cleric's body Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Maulana Arshad Madani, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025, which received the President's assent yesterday.
The petition, filed by Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, challenges various provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, terming them unconstitutional and destructive to the waqf administration and jurisprudence in India. It seeks an interim direction from the Court directing the Union of India to defer the issuance of notification under Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, which would operationalise the legislation. It is contended that once notified, several waqf properties would be vulnerable due to the mandatory timelines for uploading details on the Portal and Database envisaged under the amendment, threatening the very existence of a large number of historical waqfs—particularly those created by oral dedication or without formal deeds.
The petition takes strong exception to the removal of the concept of "waqf by user," which has long been a rule of evidence in Indian waqf jurisprudence and was specifically recognized by the Supreme Court in the Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid Judgment. The removal undermines the lived realities of Islamic charitable practices and disenfranchises long-standing community institutions such as mosques and graveyards, many of which lack formal documentation due to their historical origins. It also challenges Section 3D and 3E added by way of an amendment moved by Shri Kiren Rijiju during Lok Sabha debates on 02 April which stipulate that Waqf-declaration over ASI-protected monuments would be invalid and no waqf could be created for properties of Scheduled Scheduled Tribes.
Further, the petition challenges the recomposition of both the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards, where prior requirements mandating Muslim-majority membership have been diluted or entirely removed. This, the petition argues, is an unconstitutional interference in the religious community's right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion and property. It also challenges the removal of a similar requirement for the CEO of the Boards to be Muslims.
The dilution of powers of the Waqf Boards is also strongly assailed. It is contended that the amendments strip the Boards of their authority to determine whether a property is waqf, take away the power to remove Chairpersons through no-confidence motions, and disempower them from selecting their own Chief Executive Officers, whose appointment was previously consultative and restricted to Muslim officers.
The petition also raises concerns about the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, to waqf properties. It argues that this paves the way for encroachers to claim adverse possession, a right previously unavailable due to the sui generis character of waqf property as inalienable and perpetual.
Further, the removal of finality attached to Waqf Tribunal decisions, central rule-making powers, and overbroad procedural obligations such as public notices in local newspapers—without clarity on who is an affected person—are also flagged as violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. These provisions not only subject waqf properties to procedural hurdles but also expose them to vested interests and legal uncertainty, the petitioner claims.,
According to the petitioner, the impugned amendments override the denominational and representative foundations of the Waqf Act, 1995, and replace them with an excessive regime of executive control, in violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, and 300A of the Constitution.
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/jamiat-ulema-president-approaches-supreme-court-against-waqf-amendment-act-seeks-interim-direction-to-defer-laws-notification-288576 .
Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament representing the Hyderabad constituency in Lok Sabha, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 on the grounds that the Amendment takes way the protection accorded to the waqf under Article 26 of the Constitution while retaining such protection for religious and charitable endowments of other religions.
It is, therefore, in violation of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution of India and is manifestly arbitrary, the petition notes.
"The Amendment Act, 2025 marks a departure from this consistent progression towards affording greater protections to the rights of the Muslim community under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and charts a new course of diluting the protections to waqfs undermining the rights of the minority communities in its properties and expanding the interference of the State over waqf administration," the petition.
It is stated in the petition that the Amendment also takes away from waqfs various protections which were accorded to waqfs and Hindu, Jain, and Sikh religious and charitable endowments alike.
"This diminishing of the protection given to waqfs while retaining them for religious and charitable endowments of other religions constitutes hostile discrimination against Muslims and is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion."
Owaisi has specifically challenged the constitutional validity of clauses 2A, 3(v), 3(vii), 3(ix), 4, 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(f), 6(a), 6(c), 6(d), 7(a)(ii), 7(a)(iii), 7(a)(iv), 7(b), 8(ii), 8(iii), 8(iv), 9, 11, 12(i), 14, 15, 16, 17(a), 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21(b), 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28(a), 28(b), 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39(a), 40, 40A, 41, 42, 43(a), 43(b), and 44 of the 2025 Act.
Who can create waqf
Clauses 3(ix)(a) and 3(ix)(d) of the Bill on who can create waqf have been challenged as being manifestly arbitrary, vague, and unconstitutional restrictions. As per this clause, a person has to be a practising Muslim for at least 5 years to create a Waqf.
It is argued that the restriction on who can create a waqf is in direct conflict with Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which does not prescribe any other condition except that a person must be Muslim, competent to contract within the meaning of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and a resident of the territories to which he 1937 Act extends.
"Requiring the waqif to show or demonstrate that they have practised Islam for at least five years undermines constitutional protections under Articles 14, 15, and 300A of the Constitution, as it discriminates against recent converts by selectively preventing them from seeking religious merit immediately upon conversion by disposing of their property in a manner they deem fit.
Further, the impugned amendment imposes an additional requirement of the waqif 'demonstrating' that he has been practising Islam for at least five years, placing a third-party authority in a position to judge the practice and adherence of a citizen's faith, which makes a mockery of Article 25."
It has also been stated that Islamic law has historically permitted even non-Muslims to dedicate property as waqf. This provision was carried forward in the Waqf Act, 1995, as Section 104, and in 2013, an amendment was introduced in the 1995 Act by which the words “by a person professing Islam” were replaced with the words “by any person” in the definition of waqf, permitting non-Muslims to create valid waqfs, beyond what had already been allowed by virtue of Section 104.
"Therefore, Clauses 3(ix)(a) and 3(ix)(d) of the Amendment Act, especially when read in conjunction with Clause 40 of the said Act, by which Section 104 of the 1995 Act has been omitted, is not only unconstitutional but also effectively reverses years of progress and evolution of the waqf legislation."
The petition also challenges this amendment as it requires demonstrating that there is no 'contrivance' involved in the dedication of the property.
"This also gives another vague and entirely subjective ground for the authority to invalidate a dedication of property on a ground that does not exist in any other law relating to any other endowments of any other religion. This is again violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution."
Derocognition of waqf by user
The petition states that the principle of waqf by user is a well-established rule of evidence under Islamic jurisprudence, which has also been upheld by the Supreme Court. The judgment in M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya case verdict) has been referred to note that the Supreme Court affirmed that Muslim law recognises oral dedication and that the existence of a waqf can be legally recognised in situations where property has been the subject of public religious use since time immemorial, even in the absence of an express dedication.
"Therefore, the derecognition of this principle would not only jeopardise the status of numerous ancient waqf properties that rely on this principle to establish their existence but also run contrary to established legal precedent, including the judgment by a Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court. By exposing historic waqfs, including mosques and dargahs, to encroachment and legal challenges, Section 3(ix)(b) of the Amendment Act undermines the State's constitutional duty under Article 25 and the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991 (“1991 Act”), which contains the legislative manifestation of the doctrine of non-retrogression that this Hon'ble Court in M Siddiq (supra) has recognised as being an essential facet of secularism, which forms a core element of the basic structure of the Constitution of India."
Inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Board
Lastly, it has been submitted that the inclusion of non-Muslim members into the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, undermines the autonomy of the Muslim community in managing properties dedicated for their religious and charitable purposes, in blatant contravention of Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
"[In] Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, this Hon'ble Court established a simple test: while the institutions and properties of a religious denomination may be subject to regulatory measures, the fundamental right to administer them cannot be legislatively abrogated. By allowing the government to nominate a majority of non-Muslim members, these amendments effectively strip the Muslim community of its right to manage its own religious institutions, in direct violation of the test laid down in Shirur Mutt (supra) and Article 26 of the Constitution"
Provision
Sections 3D and 3E of the Amendment Act have also been challenged.
Section 3D prohibits the creation of Waqf over a property declared as an ancient protected monument or an archaeological site
It is stated Section 3D is ex facie unconstitutional as it retrospectively renders void any declaration or notification previously issued under any extant law of waqfs if the property to which the notification relates is a 'protected monument' or a 'protected area' within the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
"This places a question mark on hundreds of properties which are places of worship and have been continuously in use for Islamic worship for centuries. This has the potential to create conflict and vitiate the communal atmosphere in the country, particularly in relation to mosques, dargahs and other places of Islamic worship where mischievous claims have been made by divisive elements for political gain. As such, this is contrary to the principle of secularism which is recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in SR Bommai & Ors v. UOI (1994).This also has the potential of reopening wounds of the past, and undermining the objectives of the 1991 Act, which has been elevated to the status of a constitutional principle by this Hon'ble Court in M Siddiq (supra)."
Section 3E is ex facie unconstitutional as it deprives members of Scheduled Tribes of the right to dedicate property by way of waqf.
"Unlike Scheduled Castes, members of Scheduled Tribes do not lose their status as such upon conversion to another religion. Therefore, members of Scheduled Tribes who convert to Islam retain their tribal status but at the same time, take on the identity of Muslims. The impugned amendment deprives such persons of their right to freely practise their religion under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution by disallowing them from practising an essential element of their faith. It also unjustly interferes with their right to property rendering Article 300A nugatory. This amendment is also in violation of Articles 14 and 15 as it amounts to hostile discrimination between members of Scheduled Tribes on the grounds of religion and between Muslims on the grounds of their tribe. As such, this amendment is manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional, and deserves to be struck down."
The Bill, which was passed by the Rajya Sabha today, is yet to receive the Presidential Assent. The petition was filed today 10.50 AM.
The petition has been filed by AOR Lzafeer Ahmad BF.
Within hours of Parliament passing the Waqf(Amendment) Bill 2025, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bill, which makes several changes to the 1995 Act governing Waqfs.
The petition has been filed by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, contending that the law violates Constitutional 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).
It is pertinent to note that the Bill is yet to come into force as an Act since the President's assent is awaited.
In the petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Anas Tanwir, Jawed contends that the Act discriminates against the Muslim community by imposing restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments.
"For instance, while Hindu and Sikh religious trusts continue to enjoy a degree of self-regulation, the amendments to the Wakf Act, 1995 (“Wakf Act”), disproportionately increases state intervention in Waqf affairs. Such differential treatment amounts to a violation of Article 14 in addition to introduction of arbitrary classifications that lack a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved, making it impermissible under the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness," the petitioner states.
The petitioner also questions the condition in the Bill that one should be a practitioner of Islam for at least 5 years to create a Waqf, saying 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."
Additionally, the restriction discriminates against individuals who have recently converted to Islam and wish to dedicate property for religious or charitable purposes, thereby violating Article 15.
The omission of the Waqf-by-User provision is also questioned, saying that it has been recognized by several long-standing judicial decisions, including the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid verdict. "By removing this provision, the Act disregards established legal principles and limits the ability of the Waqf Tribunal to recognize properties as Waqf based on historical usage, thereby violating Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs."
The petitioner next took objection to the provisions allowing the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Board, terming it "an unwarranted interference in religious governance." The petitioner points out that Hindu religious endowments are exclusively managed by Hindus under various state enactments. "This selective intervention, without imposing similar conditions on other religious institutions, is an arbitrary classification and violates Articles 14 and 15."
The petitioner argues that the Amendment allows enhanced State interference in the administration of waqfs. It shifts key administrative functions, such as the power to determine the nature of Waqf properties, from the Waqf Board to the District Collector. This transfer of control from religious institutions to government officials dilutes the autonomy of Waqf management and contravenes Article 26(d) of the Constitution.
"These amendments undermine property rights protected under Article 300A. 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 this Hon'ble Court's decision in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388 wherein it was held that transferring control of religious property to secular authorities is an infringement of religious and property rights," the petitioner contends.
The Bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha during the wee hours of today, at around 2.30 AM, after a marathon debate which lasted for over 14 hours. Yesterday, the Lok Sabha also witnessed a similar discussion, which went past midnight, before clearing the bill.
വഖഫ് ഭേദഗതി നിയമത്തെ അടിയന്തരമായി പട്ടികപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതിനെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്തുള്ള ഹർജികൾ പരാമർശിച്ചതിന് കപിൽ സിബലിനെ ചീഫ് ജസ്റ്റിസ് ശാസിച്ചു.
"വഖഫ് നിയമത്തെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്ത് ഞങ്ങൾ ഒരു ഹർജി സമർപ്പിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്," എന്ന് മുതിർന്ന അഭിഭാഷകൻ കപിൽ സിബൽ വാദത്തിനിടെ ബെഞ്ചിനെ അറിയിക്കാൻ എഴുന്നേറ്റുനിന്നു. വിഷയത്തിൽ കോടതിയുടെ ശ്രദ്ധ അഭ്യർത്ഥിക്കുന്നതിൽ മുതിർന്ന അഭിഭാഷകൻ സിംഗ്വിയും അദ്ദേഹത്തോടൊപ്പം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു.
എന്നിരുന്നാലും, "ഒരു സംവിധാനമുള്ളപ്പോൾ നിങ്ങൾ എന്തിനാണ് അത് പരാമർശിക്കുന്നത്? ഒരു സംവിധാനമുണ്ട്.... ഉച്ചകഴിഞ്ഞ് എനിക്ക് കത്ത് ലഭിക്കും; ആവശ്യമായത് ഞാൻ ചെയ്യും" എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞുകൊണ്ട്, അനൗപചാരികമായി വിഷയം പരാമർശിക്കാനുള്ള നീക്കത്തെ ശാസിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് ചീഫ് ജസ്റ്റിസ് പെട്ടെന്ന് പ്രതികരിച്ചു.
ഹർജി ഉൾപ്പെടെയുള്ള എല്ലാ അടിയന്തര കാര്യങ്ങളും പിന്നീട് തന്റെ മുമ്പാകെ വയ്ക്കുമെന്നും അതനുസരിച്ച് ഉചിതമായ ലിസ്റ്റിംഗ് തീയതി നിശ്ചയിക്കുമെന്നും അദ്ദേഹം വ്യക്തമാക്കി.
അടിയന്തര ആശ്വാസം തേടാതെ വിഷയം "പരാമർശിക്കുക മാത്രമാണ്" ചെയ്തതെന്ന് മുതിർന്ന അഭിഭാഷകർ ചൂണ്ടിക്കാട്ടിയപ്പോൾ, ഹർജികൾ ലിസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യുന്നതിനും അടിയന്തര വാദം കേൾക്കുന്നതിനും ഉചിതമായ നടപടിക്രമങ്ങൾ പാലിക്കണമെന്ന് ചീഫ് ജസ്റ്റിസ് വാദിച്ചു.
ലോക്സഭാ എംപി അസദുദ്ദീൻ ഒവൈസി നൽകിയ ഹർജിയും അഭിഭാഷകൻ നിസാം പാഷ പരാമർശിച്ചു.
2025 ലെ വഖഫ് ഭേദഗതി നിയമത്തെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്ത് ഇതുവരെ ഹർജികൾ സമർപ്പിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നത്:
1. മുഹമ്മദ് ജാവേദ് (കോൺഗ്രസ്)
2. അസദുദ്ദീൻ ഒവൈസി (എ.ഐ.എം.ഐ.എം)
3. മമാനത്തുള്ള ഖാൻ (എഎപി)
4. അസോസിയേഷൻ ഫോർ പ്രൊട്ടക്ഷൻ ഓഫ് സിവിൽ റൈറ്റ്സ് (എൻജിഒ)
5. മൗലാന അർഷാദ് മദനി (ജംഇയ്യത്ത് ഉലമ-ഇ-ഹിന്ദ് മേധാവി)
6. സമസ്ത കേരള ജംഇയ്യത്തുൽ ഉലമ (കേരളത്തിൽ നിന്നുള്ള മുസ്ലിം സംഘടന)
7. അഞ്ജും കദാരി
അസോസിയേഷൻ ഫോർ പ്രൊട്ടക്ഷൻ ഓഫ് സിവിൽ റൈറ്റ്സ് പെറ്റീഷൻ
യു.എം.ഇ.ഡി ബിൽ എന്നറിയപ്പെടുന്ന ഏകീകൃത വഖഫ് മാനേജ്മെന്റ് എംപവർമെന്റ്, എഫിഷ്യൻസി ആൻഡ് ഡെവലപ്മെന്റ് ബില്ല്, 2025 ന്റെ ഭരണഘടനാ സാധുതയെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് എ.ഒ.ആർ. അദീൽ അഹമ്മദ് മുഖേന സമർപ്പിച്ച ഹർജി സമർപ്പിച്ചത് . ഭരണഘടനയുടെ ആർട്ടിക്കിൾ 32-നോടൊപ്പം ആർട്ടിക്കിൾ 142-ഉം ചേർത്ത് വായിക്കുന്ന ഹർജിക്കാരൻ, മതസ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം, ന്യൂനപക്ഷ അവകാശങ്ങൾ, സ്വത്ത് സംരക്ഷണം എന്നിവയ്ക്കെതിരായ ഗുരുതരമായ ആക്രമണമാണെന്ന് വിശേഷിപ്പിച്ച് നിയമനിർമ്മാണം റദ്ദാക്കാൻ സുപ്രീം കോടതിയുടെ അനുമതി തേടിയിട്ടുണ്ട്.
ഹരജി പ്രകാരം, UMEED ബിൽ ഭരണഘടനയുടെ ആമുഖത്തിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തിയിരിക്കുന്ന മതേതരവും ജനാധിപത്യപരവുമായ മൂല്യങ്ങളെ ദുർബലപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതിന് പുറമേ, ആർട്ടിക്കിൾ 14 (നിയമത്തിന് മുമ്പിലുള്ള സമത്വം), 25, 26 (മതസ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം), 300A (സ്വത്തവകാശം) എന്നിവ നേരിട്ട് ലംഘിക്കുന്നു. ബിൽ പാർലമെന്റിൽ പ്രോസസ്സ് ചെയ്ത് പാസാക്കിയ രീതിക്കെതിരെ ഹർജി ശക്തമായ എതിർപ്പുകൾ ഉയർത്തുന്നു. 2025 ഏപ്രിൽ 3 ന് ലോക്സഭ ഇത് അംഗീകരിച്ചു, അടുത്ത ദിവസം, 2025 ഏപ്രിൽ 4 ന് രാജ്യസഭയിൽ ഇത് പാസാക്കി. മതിയായ ചർച്ചയോ പങ്കാളികളുമായി കൂടിയാലോചനയോ ഇല്ലാതെ ബിൽ തിടുക്കത്തിൽ പാസാക്കിയെന്നും ഇപ്പോൾ രാഷ്ട്രപതിയുടെ അനുമതി ലഭിക്കാൻ പോകുകയാണെന്നും ഹർജിക്കാരൻ ആരോപിക്കുന്നു.
നിർദ്ദിഷ്ട പുനഃസ്ഥാപനത്തെ "മുസ്ലീം സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ മതപരമായ കാര്യങ്ങളിൽ ഭയാനകമായ ഇടപെടൽ" എന്ന് വിശേഷിപ്പിച്ച ഹർജിക്കാരൻ, സുപ്രീം കോടതിയുടെ മുൻ വിധികൾ സ്ഥിരീകരിച്ചതുപോലെ, നിലവിലുള്ള വഖഫ് നിയമം, 1995, വഖഫ് സ്വത്തുക്കൾ കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്യുന്നതിനും കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്യുന്നതിനുമുള്ള സമഗ്രമായ ഒരു നിയമഘടന നൽകുന്നുവെന്ന് വാദിക്കുന്നു.
വഖഫ് നിയമത്തിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തിയിരുന്ന സ്വാഭാവിക നീതിയുടെ തത്വങ്ങളെ ദുർബലപ്പെടുത്തുന്നുവെന്ന് അവകാശപ്പെടുന്ന UMEED ബില്ലിൽ സെക്ഷൻ 40 ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതിനെ ഹർജിക്കാരൻ പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് ചൂണ്ടിക്കാണിക്കുന്നു. കൂടാതെ, ദീർഘകാലമായി നിലനിൽക്കുന്ന വഖഫിനെ ഉപയോക്തൃ സിദ്ധാന്തം വഴി ഉയർത്തിപ്പിടിച്ച സെക്ഷൻ 3(i)(r) നീക്കം ചെയ്തതിനെ വഖഫ് സ്വത്തുക്കൾക്ക് നൽകിയിട്ടുള്ള "നിയമ സംരക്ഷണം ദുർബലപ്പെടുത്താനുള്ള മനഃപൂർവമായ ശ്രമം" എന്ന് വിശേഷിപ്പിക്കുന്നു.
ശ്രദ്ധേയമായി, അയോധ്യ വിധിയിൽ (എം. സിദ്ദിഖ് v. മഹന്ത് സുരേഷ് ദാസ്) സുപ്രീം കോടതി തന്നെ ഉപയോക്തൃ സിദ്ധാന്തം അംഗീകരിച്ചതിനെ ഉദ്ധരിച്ച്, ഈ ഒഴിവാക്കൽ ഭരണഘടനാ സംരക്ഷണങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നും ജുഡീഷ്യൽ അംഗീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ട തത്വങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നുമുള്ള ഒരു പിന്മാറ്റത്തെ പ്രതിഫലിപ്പിക്കുന്നുവെന്ന് വാദിക്കാൻ ഹർജിയിൽ പരാമർശിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്.
"2025 ലെ UMEED ബിൽ ഭരണഘടനാ വിരുദ്ധവും അന്യായവുമായ നിയമനിർമ്മാണ അതിക്രമമാണെന്ന് ഹർജിക്കാരൻ വിനീതമായി സമർപ്പിക്കുന്നു, ഇന്ത്യൻ ഭരണഘടന ഉറപ്പുനൽകുന്ന മൗലികാവകാശങ്ങൾ, വ്യക്തിസ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം, മതപരമായ സ്വയംഭരണം എന്നിവ ഉയർത്തിപ്പിടിക്കുന്നതിനായി അത് റദ്ദാക്കണം," ഹർജിയിൽ പറയുന്നു.
അഞ്ജും കാദരിയുടെ ഹർജി
പാർലമെന്റിന്റെ ഇരുസഭകളും അടുത്തിടെ പാസാക്കിയ ഏകീകൃത വഖഫ് മാനേജ്മെന്റ് ശാക്തീകരണം, കാര്യക്ഷമത, വികസന ബില്ല്, 2025 ന്റെ ഭരണഘടനാ സാധുതയെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യുന്നതാണ് എഒആർ സഞ്ജീവ് മൽഹോത്ര മുഖേന സമർപ്പിച്ച ഹർജി . ഭരണഘടനയുടെ ആർട്ടിക്കിൾ 142 നോടൊപ്പം ചേർത്ത ആർട്ടിക്കിൾ 32 പ്രകാരം സമർപ്പിച്ച ഹർജിയിൽ, 2025 ലെ വഖഫ് ഭേദഗതി ബിൽ, പൗരന്മാർക്ക്, പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് മുസ്ലീം സമുദായത്തിൽപ്പെട്ടവർക്ക് ഉറപ്പുനൽകുന്ന മൗലികാവകാശങ്ങളെയും ഭരണഘടനാ സംരക്ഷണങ്ങളെയും ലംഘിക്കുന്നുവെന്ന് ആരോപിക്കുന്നു.
1995 ലെ വഖഫ് നിയമത്തിലെ ഭേദഗതികൾ ഭരണഘടനയുടെ ആർട്ടിക്കിൾ 14 (സമത്വത്തിനുള്ള അവകാശം), 15 (വിവേചന നിരോധനം), 19 (സംസാര സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം, ആവിഷ്കാര സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം), 21 (ജീവിക്കാനും വ്യക്തിസ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തിനുമുള്ള അവകാശം), 25, 26 (മതസ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം), 29, 30 (ന്യൂനപക്ഷങ്ങളുടെ സാംസ്കാരികവും വിദ്യാഭ്യാസപരവുമായ അവകാശങ്ങൾ), ആർട്ടിക്കിൾ 300-എ (സ്വത്തവകാശം) എന്നിവയുടെ ലംഘനമാണെന്ന് ഹർജിക്കാരൻ വാദിക്കുന്നു.
അല്ലാഹുവിന് കൈമാറ്റം ചെയ്യപ്പെടുന്ന സ്വത്ത് എന്ന് നിർവചിക്കപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്ന വഖഫ്, 1913 ലെ മുസൽമാൻ വഖഫ് വാലിഡേറ്റിംഗ് ആക്ട്, 1954 ലെ വഖഫ് ആക്ട്, പിന്നീട് സംസ്ഥാന വഖഫ് ബോർഡുകൾ വഴി ശക്തമായ ഭരണ സംവിധാനങ്ങൾ അവതരിപ്പിച്ച 1995 ലെ വഖഫ് (ഭേദഗതി) ആക്ട് തുടങ്ങിയ നിയമ ചട്ടക്കൂടുകളിലൂടെ വളരെക്കാലമായി ഭരിക്കപ്പെട്ടിരുന്നുവെന്ന് ഹർജിയിൽ പറയുന്നു. സുതാര്യതയും നിർവ്വഹണവും മെച്ചപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതിനായി 2013 ൽ കൂടുതൽ ഭേദഗതികൾ കൊണ്ടുവന്നു.
എന്നിരുന്നാലും, 2024 ഓഗസ്റ്റിൽ അവതരിപ്പിച്ച നിലവിലെ ബിൽ വ്യാപകമായ വിമർശനത്തിന് ഇടയാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. ബിൽ അവലോകനം ചെയ്ത സംയുക്ത പാർലമെന്ററി കമ്മിറ്റി ന്യൂനപക്ഷ സംഘടനകൾ ഉൾപ്പെടെയുള്ള പ്രധാന പങ്കാളികളുടെ അഭിപ്രായങ്ങൾ അവഗണിച്ചുവെന്ന് ഹർജിക്കാരൻ ആരോപിക്കുന്നു. എതിർപ്പുകൾ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നിട്ടും, കമ്മിറ്റിയുടെ റിപ്പോർട്ട് അന്തിമമാക്കി 2025 ഫെബ്രുവരിയിൽ ലോക്സഭയിൽ സമർപ്പിച്ചു, ബിൽ തിടുക്കത്തിൽ പാസാക്കി - ആദ്യം 2025 ഏപ്രിൽ 3 ന് ലോക്സഭയും പിന്നീട് അടുത്ത ദിവസം, 2025 ഏപ്രിൽ 4 ന് രാജ്യസഭയും.
ബിൽ പാസായതിനെത്തുടർന്ന്, ന്യൂനപക്ഷ അവകാശങ്ങൾ ഇല്ലാതാക്കുന്നതിനെക്കുറിച്ചും മതപരവും ജീവകാരുണ്യവുമായ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിൽ എക്സിക്യൂട്ടീവിന്റെ ഏകപക്ഷീയമായ ഇടപെടലിനെക്കുറിച്ചും ആശങ്കകൾ ഉന്നയിച്ച് 2025 ഏപ്രിൽ 5 ന് ആയിരക്കണക്കിന് പ്രതിഷേധക്കാർ തെരുവിലിറങ്ങി.
ഭേദഗതി ബിൽ ഇനിപ്പറയുന്നവയാണെന്ന് ഹർജി ആരോപിക്കുന്നു:-
- മുസ്ലീം സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ മതപരവും സാംസ്കാരികവുമായ അവകാശങ്ങൾ വെട്ടിക്കുറയ്ക്കുകയും അവയിൽ ഇടപെടുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നു.
- ന്യൂനപക്ഷങ്ങൾക്ക് അവരുടെ സ്വന്തം മതസ്ഥാപനങ്ങൾ കൈകാര്യം ചെയ്യാനുള്ള സ്വയംഭരണത്തെ ദുർബലപ്പെടുത്തുന്നു.
- വഖഫ് ബോർഡുകളുടെ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം ഇല്ലാതാക്കിക്കൊണ്ട് അമിതമായ എക്സിക്യൂട്ടീവ് നിയന്ത്രണം സാധ്യമാക്കുന്നു.
- അർത്ഥവത്തായ പാർലമെന്ററി ചർച്ചയും പൊതുജനാഭിപ്രായം തേടലും ഒഴിവാക്കി തിടുക്കത്തിൽ പാസാക്കി.
മതേതരവും ക്ഷേമപരവുമായ ഒരു രാഷ്ട്രമെന്ന നിലയിൽ ഇന്ത്യയ്ക്ക് വിവേചനപരമോ മതപരമായ ആചാരങ്ങളെ ലക്ഷ്യം വച്ചുള്ളതോ ആയ നയങ്ങൾ നടപ്പിലാക്കാൻ കഴിയില്ലെന്ന് ഹർജിക്കാരൻ ഊന്നിപ്പറഞ്ഞു. ഭരണഘടനയിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തിയിരിക്കുന്ന മതപരവും സാംസ്കാരികവുമായ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യങ്ങളുടെ ഘടനയെ തന്നെ ബിൽ ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തുന്നുവെന്ന് ഹർജിയിൽ പറയുന്നു.
കാരണത്തിന്റെ പേര്: അസോസിയേഷൻ ഫോർ പ്രൊട്ടക്ഷൻ ഓഫ് സിവിൽ റൈറ്റ്സ് v. യൂണിയൻ ഓഫ് ഇന്ത്യ, അഞ്ജും കദാരി v. യൂണിയൻ ഓഫ് ഇന്ത്യ & മറ്റുള്ളവർ.
There Is A System In Place: CJI Rebukes Kapil Sibal For Mentioning Pleas Challenging Waqf Amendment Act For Urgent Listing
In a brief but notable exchange during the morning mentioning in the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna firmly reminded Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi to adhere to established procedures after they sought to mention a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.
“We have moved a petition to challenge the Waqf Act,” Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted, rising to inform the Bench during the mentioning period. He was joined by Senior Advocate Singhvi in requesting the Court’s attention to the matter.
However, the CJI swiftly responded, reprimanding the move to mention the matter informally, saying, “Why are you mentioning it when there is a system? There is a system in place....I will get the letter in the afternoon; I will do the needful.”
He further clarified that all urgent matters, including the petition in question, would be placed before him later in the day, and the appropriate listing date would be assigned accordingly.
While the Senior Advocates noted that they were “just mentioning” the matter without pressing for any immediate relief, the CJI maintained that due process must be followed for listing and urgent hearing requests.
Advocate Nizam Pasha also mentioned the petition filed by Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi.
So far, Petitions have been filed challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 by:
1. Mohd. Jawed (Congress)
2. Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM)
3. Mmanatullah Khan (AAP)
4. Association For Protection of Civil Rights (NGO)
5. Maulana Arshad Madani (Head of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind)
6. Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema (Muslim organisation from Kerala)
7. Anjum Kadari
Association For Protection of Civil Rights Petition
The petition filed through AoR Adeel Ahmed challenged the constitutional validity of the Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Bill, 2025, commonly referred to as the UMEED Bill. The petitioner, invoking Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, has sought the indulgence of the apex court to strike down the legislation, calling it a grave assault on religious freedom, minority rights, and property protections.
According to the petition, the UMEED Bill directly violates Articles 14 (equality before law), 25 and 26 (freedom of religion), and 300A (right to property), in addition to undermining the secular and democratic values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. The petition raises strong objections to the manner in which the Bill was processed and passed in Parliament. It was cleared by the Lok Sabha on April 3, 2025, and passed in the Rajya Sabha the very next day, on April 4, 2025. The petitioner alleges that the Bill was rushed through without adequate debate or stakeholder consultation, and is now on the verge of receiving Presidential assent.
Calling the proposed overhaul "alarming interference into the religious affairs of the Muslim community", the petitioner contends that the existing Waqf Act, 1995, already provides a comprehensive legal structure for managing and administering Waqf properties, as affirmed by prior rulings of the Supreme Court.
The petitioner particularly flags the insertion of Section 40 in the UMEED Bill, which is claimed to undermine the principles of natural justice that were embedded in the original Waqf Act. Further, the removal of Section 3(i)(r), which upheld the long-standing Waqf by user doctrine—is termed as a "deliberate attempt to weaken legal protection" granted to Waqf properties.
Notably, the plea cites the Supreme Court's own recognition of the Waqf by user doctrine in the landmark Ayodhya verdict (M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das) to argue that the omission reflects a retreat from constitutional safeguards and judicially accepted principles.
"The petitioner humbly submits that the UMEED Bill, 2025, is an unconstitutional and unjustified legislative overreach that must be struck down in the interest of upholding the fundamental rights, Individual freedom and religious autonomy guaranteed under the Constitution of India," the petition reads.
Anjum Kadari's Petition
The petition filed through AoR Sanjeev Malhotra challenges the constitutionality of the Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Bill, 2025, recently passed by both Houses of Parliament. The petition, filed under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, alleges that the Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025, infringes upon the fundamental rights and constitutional protections guaranteed to citizens, particularly those belonging to the Muslim community.
The petitioner contends that the amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995, violate Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), 25 and 26 (freedom of religion), 29 and 30 (cultural and educational rights of minorities), and Article 300-A (right to property) of the Constitution.
According to the petition, Waqf, defined as a property transferred to Allah, has long been governed through legal frameworks such as the Mussalman Waqf Validating Act, 1913, the Waqf Act of 1954, and later, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 1995, which introduced stronger administrative mechanisms via State Waqf Boards. In 2013, further amendments were introduced to improve transparency and enforcement.
However, the present Bill, introduced in August 2024, has drawn widespread criticism. The petitioner alleges that the Joint Parliamentary Committee, which reviewed the Bill ignored the opinions of key stakeholders, including minority organizations. Despite objections, the Committee's report was finalized and tabled in the Lok Sabha in February 2025, and the Bill was passed in a hurried manner—first by the Lok Sabha on April 3, 2025, and then by the Rajya Sabha the very next day, April 4, 2025.
Following the passage of the Bill, thousands of protestors took to the streets on April 5, 2025, raising concerns over the erosion of minority rights and alleged arbitrary executive interference in religious and charitable institutions.
The petition alleges that the Amendment Bill:-
- Curtails and interferes with the religious and cultural rights of the Muslim community.
- Undermines the autonomy of minorities to manage their own religious institutions.
- Enables excessive executive control, stripping the Waqf Boards of their independence.
- Was passed in haste, bypassing meaningful parliamentary debate and public consultation.
The petitioner has emphasized that India, as a secular and welfare state, cannot enforce policies that are seen as discriminatory or targeting religious practices. The Bill, according to the plea, threatens the very fabric of religious and cultural freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
Cause Title: Association For Protection of Civil Rights v. Union of India, and Anjum Kadari v. Union of India & Ors.
അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളൊന്നുമില്ല:
ഒരു അഭിപ്രായം പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യൂ