'Discriminates Against Muslim Community' : Congress MP Approaches Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Bill 2025

Within hours of Parliament passing the Waqf(Amendment) Bill 2025, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Bill, which makes several changes to the 1995 Act governing Waqfs.

The petition has been filed by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, contending that the law violates Constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 25 (freedom to practice religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 29 (minority rights) and 300A (right to property).

It is pertinent to note that the Bill is yet to come into force as an Act since the President's assent is awaited.

In the petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Anas Tanwir, Jawed contends that the Act discriminates against the Muslim community by imposing restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments.

"For instance, while Hindu and Sikh religious trusts continue to enjoy a degree of self-regulation, the amendments to the Wakf Act, 1995 (“Wakf Act”), 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," the petitioner states.

The petitioner also questions the condition in the Bill that one should be a practitioner of Islam for at least 5 years to create a Waqf, saying that 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."

Additionally, 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 omission of the Waqf-by-User provision is also questioned, saying that it has been recognized by several long-standing judicial decisions, including the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid verdict. "By removing this provision, the Act disregards established legal principles and limits the ability of the Waqf Tribunal to recognize properties as Waqf based on historical usage, thereby violating Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs."

The petitioner next took objection to the provisions allowing the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Board, terming it "an unwarranted interference in religious governance." The petitioner points out that Hindu religious endowments are exclusively managed by Hindus under various state enactments. "This selective intervention, without imposing similar conditions on other religious institutions, is an arbitrary classification and violates Articles 14 and 15."

The petitioner argues that the Amendment allows enhanced State interference in the administration of waqfs.  It 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) of the Constitution.

"These amendments undermine property rights protected under Article 300A. By expanding State control over Waqf assets, limiting the ability of individuals to dedicate property for religious purposes, and subjecting Waqf properties to heightened scrutiny, the Act goes against this Hon'ble Court's decision in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388 wherein it was held that transferring control of religious property to secular authorities is an infringement of religious and property rights," the petitioner contends.

The Bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha during the wee hours of today, at around 2.30 AM, after a marathon debate which lasted for over 14 hours. Yesterday, the Lok Sabha also witnessed a similar discussion, which went past midnight, before clearing the bill.