Jamiat Ulema President Approaches Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act; Seeks Interim Direction To Defer Law's Notification

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.