Delhi MLA Amanatullah Khan Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Bill

A day after two writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, another petition has now been filed by Amanatullah Khan, a Member of the Delhi Legislative Assembly, ˘belonging to the Aam Aadmi Party, contending that the 2025 Bill was curtaining the religious and cultural autonomy of Muslims and enabling arbitrary executive interference with the rights to manage their religious and charitable institutions.

It is stated that although the Bill has not received the assent of the President, its provisions have triggered widespread anxiety among Muslims, particularly the changes that dilute the religious autonomy and constitutional protections of waqf institutions. 

The petition has challenged the amendments in the parent Act, Waqf Act, 1995, such as the following:

1. Renaming the law as "Unifed Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development"

2.  Section 3(r), adding the condition that only Muslims practising Islam for 5 years can create waqf. The ground for challenge is that it disqualifies historical forms of waqf by user and informal dedications.

"The impugned provisions infringe this autonomy by statutorily altering the essential religious practice of waqf dedication recognized under Muslim law," as stated in the petition.

3. The omission of Waqf- by-user provision.

"Article 29 guarantees the right of any section of citizens having a distinct culture to conserve the same. Waqf, being integral to the cultural and religious identity of the Muslim community, falls with this protection. The statutory exclusion of waqf by user , the restrictions on decisions, and dilution of religious composition in governance bodies severely impair the ability of Muslims to preserve their religious and cultural institutions.

Article 30 protects the rights of minorities to establish and administer institutions of their choice. By undermining the autonomy of Waqf Boards and religious charities, and centralising power in secular executive hands, the Bill encroaches upon this guarantee.

4.  Section 3A, which states that waqf-alal-aulad cannot deny inheritance rights, especially to women heirs.

5. Section 3B, which mandates the filing of waqf and property details on the central portal within 6 months; 

"The Bill centralizes power through mandatory digitisation (Section 3B) and central rulemaking (Section 108B) without adequate consultation with State Waqf Boards. This violates the federal distribution of legislative powers under the Seventh Schedule and the principles laid down in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994 SCC (3) 1). The Bill centralizes power through mandatory digitisation (Section 3B) and central rulemaking (Section 108B) without adequate consultation with State Waqf Boards. This violates the federal distribution of legislative powers under the Seventh Schedule and the principles laid down in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994 SCC (3) 1)."

6. Section 3C, which says Government property cannot be declared as waqf and disputes to be settled by the Collector.

"Section 3C prohibits any government property from being declared waqf. This statutory exclusion of government land, irrespective of historical evidence or user, disproportionately affects the Muslim community. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018 10 SCC 1), the Court emphasized the need for substantive equality. The amendment fails this test by selectively disabling one community's religious practices," the petition notes.

5. Section 14, which allows the inclusion of 2 non-Muslim members in the State Waqf Board composition.

Grounds for challenge is that the introduction of non-Muslim members to the Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council under Sections 9 and 14 creates a classification that is not based on intelligible differentia, nor does it have a rational nexus with the object of religious property administration.

6. The changes to Section 2 as per which the CEO of the Board need not be a Muslim.

7. Section 36, creation of waqf could be done orally. Now, it requires a written deed.

"The denial of legal recourse for unregistered waqfs after 6 months (Section 36(10)) amounts to statutory extinguishment of property rights without compensation. In K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1, this Hon'ble Court held that acquisition or extinguishment of property rights must be fair, just and in public interest."

8. Section 33, Tribunal could stay eviction pending appeal. Now, the power to stay has been removed and an appeal is available against the order.

"The transfer of adjudicatory powers from the Tribunal to Executive authorities like the District Collector (Section 4) and the curtailment of Tribunal's stay powers (Section 83) amount to denial of fair procedure. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597), this Court held that the procedure under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable. The replacement of judicial oversight with executive discretion fails this standard," the plea staes.

The petition is drawn and filed by Adeel Ahmed, AoR, Mujeeb ur Rahman, Taqdees Fatima, Atul Yadav, Areeba Athar, advocates.