NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said it would examine the petitions filed challenging validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 in "due course".
A bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Vishwanathan said there is a robust system of listing petitions and the matter would come up in due course.
Urgent mentionings were made by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A M Singhvi and others on behalf of some of the petitioners.
Those petitions challenged the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, which got the assent of President Droupadi Murmu on April 5.
Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, and AAP MLA in Delhi Amanatullah Khan have filed their own petitions.
Organisations like Association for Protection of Civil Rights, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama have also filed writ petitions in the top court.
The Act replaced waqf in Waqf Act, 1995, as "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995" (UWMEED Act 1995).
The petitioners claimed the Act was a dangerous conspiracy to strip Muslims of their religious freedom. They also alleged the amendment would also distort the religious character of Waqfs while also irreversibly damaging the democratic process in the administration of Waqf and Waqf Boards.
Their plea also sought a direction from the apex court to declare the Act as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 300-A of the Constitution. It sought a mandamus restraining the respondents Union Government and Law and Justice Ministry from enforcing or operationalising its provisions.
First petitioner, Jawed MP from Muslim-dominated Kishanganj, said that he has challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Act) on the grounds that it violates rights enshrined under Article 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.
He claimed, the Act imposed arbitrary restrictions on Waqf properties and their management, thereby undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community. The Act discriminated against the Muslim community by imposing restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments, his plea said.
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.
"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," his plea said.
His plea said that the Act introduced restrictions on the creation of Waqfs based on the duration of one's religious practice. "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. 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 plea added.
The plea said that the Act omitted the concept of Waqf-by-User. By removing certain provision, the Act disregarded established legal principles and limited the ability of the Waqf Tribunal to recognise properties as Waqf based on historical usage, thereby violating Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs.
The enhanced role of State authorities in Waqf administration impinges on the right of the Muslim community to manage its institutions. The Act 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). Such an amendment is also against settled law, the plea claimed.
