New Delhi: A significant legal challenge to the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 is underway in the Supreme Court of India. The Act has sparked significant controversy, leading to over 70 petitions contesting its constitutionality. The case, before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, alongside Justices Sanjay Kumar and Vishwanathan, is examining the Act’s impact on religious endowments across India.
There are two key questions Central to the debate: should the Supreme Court hear the case, or should it be remitted to the High Courts? And, crucially, which constitutional provisions, if any, are violated by the Act? The arguments presented by both sides highlight significant legal and constitutional considerations.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, defended the Act’s provisions. Conversely, a formidable team of senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Rajiv Dhavan, argued against the Act. Their arguments focused on several contentious clauses. Mr Sibal, for instance, strongly criticised the clause mandating five years of practising Islam to establish a Waqf, characterising it as an attack on religious freedom. Concerns were also raised regarding the government’s power to declare lands as Waqf without sufficient checks, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions and disputes.
The potential impact on the user principle, which allows properties to become Waqf through consistent religious use, was also heavily contested. Mr Sibal warned that this could throw hundreds of thousands of properties into legal uncertainty.
Chief Justice Khannas’ comments during the hearing indicated concerns about the potential for chaos if the user principle were to be scrapped, highlighting the need for a clear and regulated registration process. The inclusion of non-Muslim members on Waqf boards also emerged as a significant point of contention, with Mr Sibal arguing that even one non-Muslim member violates the principle of religious autonomy. The government countered by stating that only two ex officio non-Muslim members are permitted.
The Supreme Court issued interim reliefs to mitigate potential negative impacts while the case continues. These include a prohibition on denoting properties already declared as Waqf by the courts. Collector proceedings can continue, but enforcement is temporarily suspended. Crucially, only Muslims, apart from ex-officio members, can serve on Waqf boards. The court also noted the recent Murshidabad violence, urging restraint. The next hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 2 PM. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for religious endowments and the governance of religious affairs in India.
