'Manifestly Arbitrary' : SP MP Zia UR Rehman Moves Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Samajwadi Party leader Zia Ur Rehman, member of Parliament from Sambhal in Lok Sabha, has filed a writ petition challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, on the grounds that it is "manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires" of the Constitution. It is contended that the Act violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by introducing unreasonable and discriminatory classification without any intelligible differentia or rational nexus. 

Furthermore, the petition states that the 2025 Amendment Act impinges upon the rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution by interfering with the freedom of conscience and the right to manage religious affairs. It also deprives individuals of their property without the authority of law, hence violating Article 300A.

The petition, filed through AOR Usman Ghani Khan and represented by Advocate Sulaiman Mohd Khan, particularly points out that the Act imposes "unreasonable limitations" on the management and oversight of waqf properties. It consequently undermines the "religious independence" of the Muslim community. It also discriminates against the Muslim community by introducing restrictions not applicable to the governance of other religious endowments.

For example, Hindu and Sikh religious trusts continue to benefit from a level of self-regulation, whereas the amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995 (“Waqf Act”), significantly enhance state intervention in the management of Waqf matters. 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, as held in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952] 1 SCR 284.

Further, the petition states that the Act restricts the establishment of waqf contingent upon the duration of an individual's religious practice. As per the Amendment Act, a person should be a practising Muslim for 5 years. 

Such a limitation lacks a basis in Islamic law, tradition, or established precedent and constitutes an infringement of the fundamental right to profess and practice one's religion as guaranteed by Article 25. Furthermore, this restriction disproportionately affects individuals who have recently converted to Islam and seek to dedicate property for religious or charitable purposes, thereby contravening Article 15. 

The petitioner has also challenged the provision omitting waqf by user. 

The doctrine of Waqf-by-User, has been duly affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2019) 4 SCC 641, wherein it was held that a property may attain status of Waqf through long-standing religious use. 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 petition terms the inclusion of two non-Muslim members as selective intervention, without imposing similar conditions on other religious institutions. 

Further, amendment to the composition of the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council mandates inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf administrative bodies, which is an unwarranted interference in religious governance unlike Hindu religious endowments, which remain exclusively managed by Hindus under various state enactments. This selective intervention, without imposing similar conditions on otherreligious institutions, is an arbitrary classification and violates Articles 14 and 15. The enhanced role of State authorities in Waqf administration impinges on the right of the Muslim community to manage its institutions.

On the administration of waqf properties, it has been stated that the key administrative functions, such as the power to determine the nature of waqf properties, from the waqf Board to the District Collector dilutes the autonomy of waqf management and contravenes Article 26 because of the transfer of control from religious institutions to government officials. 

Such an amendment is also against settled law as held in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Madras v. Shri Laxmindar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shirur Mutt 1954 SCR 1005. The Act also modifies the process of dispute resolution by altering the composition and powers of Waqf Tribunals. It reduces representation of individuals with expertise in Islamic law, influencing the adjudication of Waqf related disputes. 

Lastly, the petition submits that the Amendment Act significantly erodes the constitutional protection of property rights guaranteed under Article 300A by enhancing the State's control.

By enhancing State control over waqf assets, restricting individuals' ability to make voluntary dedications for religious purposes, and subjecting waqf properties to increased governmental scrutiny, the Amendment Act imposes unjustified limitations on both religious freedom and property rights. These actions are in derogation of the principle laid down by this Hon'ble Court in K.K. Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala, (2001) 10 SCC 120, wherein it was affirmed that deprivation of property must be backed by authority of law that is just, fair, and reasonable. The Act, by centralizing control of religious endowments by including non-Muslim members, curtails the autonomy of religious communities in managing their own institutions and properties, thereby offending both Articles 26 and 300A of the Constitution

So far, more than ten petitions have been filed challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.