NEW DELHI: On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India is set to hear a significant batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. This act, which has sparked widespread protests and controversy, is alleged to infringe on the rights of Muslims and undermine the management of Waqf properties across the country. A total of 73 petitions have been filed, including those from prominent political figures and organizations, all raising concerns about the implications of the amended law.
Among the petitioners is advocate Hari Shankar Jain, who has been at the forefront of legal battles regarding the restoration of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Idgah at Mathura. Jain's petition specifically seeks the scrapping of several provisions of the Waqf Act of 1995 and its recent amendments, alleging these laws have facilitated the illegal acquisition of immovable properties by waqfs across India. He argues that these provisions enable Muslims to unlawfully capture properties belonging to public utilities, government, gram samajs, and Hindu temples.
Jain's claims are echoed by other petitioners, including AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi, AAP functionary Amanatullah Khan, and various religious organizations such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema. These petitioners argue that the amendments violate fundamental rights, particularly the right to equality and the right to freely practice religion.
The Supreme Court's bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan, will begin hearing the petitions at 2 PM. The petitions have raised numerous objections to the amendments, including claims that they dismantle the democratic structure of Waqf Boards by eliminating elections, allow non-Muslims to be appointed to these boards, and remove the community's ability to assert and define its own religious properties.
Critics of the Waqf Amendment Act argue that it places the future of Waqf lands at the mercy of executive authorities and bars Scheduled Tribe members from establishing a Waqf, thus denying their rights. Additionally, the definition of Waqf has been altered, removing the concept of 'Waqf by user,' a judicially developed doctrine that has been crucial for many communities. The amendments are viewed as an attempt to dilute the statutory protections previously afforded to Waqfs and their regulatory framework.
Supporters of the amendment, including the Central Government, assert that it is necessary for ensuring transparency in the management of Waqf properties. They argue that the legislation addresses long-standing irregularities in the administration of these properties, which they claim have not benefitted impoverished Muslims or vulnerable groups, such as women and children. The government maintains that the bill was drawn up after extensive consultations and has the backing of various non-Muslim minorities.
The Waqf Amendment Act was passed in Parliament earlier this month after significant debate, with the Rajya Sabha approving it by a vote of 128 in favor and 95 against, and the Lok Sabha passing it with 288 votes for and 232 against. Following its passage, the act received the assent of President Droupadi Murmu on April 5, 2025.
Amid the legal challenges, protests erupted across the country, with significant unrest reported in West Bengal, where three individuals lost their lives during demonstrations against the amended law. The Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, has publicly stated that her government will not implement the amended Waqf law, citing concerns over its implications for the Muslim community.
In addition to the petitions from Muslim leaders and organizations, there are also challenges from Hindu parties against the original Waqf Act of 1995. These petitions reflect a broader concern about the management and ownership of religious properties in India, which has historically been a contentious issue.
The Supreme Court's decision on this matter could have far-reaching implications for the management of Waqf properties and the rights of religious minorities in India. As the court prepares to hear arguments from both sides, the outcome remains uncertain, with advocates on both sides of the debate fervently presenting their cases.
As the legal battle unfolds, it is clear that the Waqf Amendment Act has ignited a passionate discourse about religious rights, property management, and the intersection of law and faith in India. The Supreme Court's ruling could set a precedent for how such laws are interpreted and enforced in the future, making it a pivotal moment for religious communities across the nation.
