The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on April 16.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, will preside over the matter, listed as item number 13 on the daily causelist published by the apex court.
The Union Government has also filed a caveat application, urging the Court to ensure that no ex-parte order is passed without hearing its position. A caveat is a precautionary legal step taken by a party seeking to prevent any adverse ruling without being heard.
A number of political parties, individuals, and civil society groups have approached the top court, contending that the amended legislation discriminates against the Muslim community and infringes upon their fundamental rights.
President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Waqf (Amendment) Bill on 5 April, following heated deliberations in both Houses of Parliament.
Petitioners include All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress MPs Mohammad Jawed and Imran Pratapgarhi, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, and Azad Samaj Party chief Chandra Shekhar Azad.
Several political outfits and religious bodies have also moved the Court against the Act. These include the Samajwadi Party, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind led by Maulana Arshad Madani, Kerala-based Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema, Social Democratic Party of India, Indian Union Muslim League, and the Association for Protection of Civil Rights.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) termed the amendments “arbitrary, discriminatory and based on exclusion.”
Also read: 26/11 accused Rana on way to India, to be jailed in Tihar
Rajya Sabha MPs Manoj Jha and Faiyaz Ahmad of the Rashtriya Janata Dal, along with Bihar MLA Muhammad Izhar Asfi, have also filed challenges. The ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), through MP A Raja—who was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf Bill—has similarly petitioned the Court.
Mohammad Jawed, who also served on the Parliamentary Committee, argued that the Act singles out Muslim religious endowments by imposing restrictions not applicable to similar institutions of other faiths.
In his plea, Mr Owaisi contended that the amended Act “irreversibly dilute” protections provided to Waqfs, conferring “undue advantage upon other stakeholders and interest groups,” and undermining decades of institutional progress.
AAP leader Amanatullah Khan argued that the legislation infringes upon the religious and cultural autonomy of the Muslim community, enabling “arbitrary executive interference” and threatening their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The Kerala-based Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema stated that the amendments would distort the religious character of Waqfs and jeopardise democratic oversight of Waqf Boards.
Maulana Madani's petition described the new provisions as unconstitutional and damaging to the jurisprudence surrounding Waqf administration in India. He also raised concerns about a clause requiring mandatory digitisation and uploading of Waqf records, which could imperil the existence of historic properties established orally or without written deeds.
The Association for Protection of Civil Rights, an NGO, argued that the amended Act amounts to “alarming interference” in the religious practices of Muslims and erodes the essence of Waqf, which is deeply rooted in Islamic traditions.
The matter is expected to draw intense legal scrutiny, with implications for both religious freedoms and the governance of charitable endowments in India.
Follow us
