'Alarming Interference With Religious Affairs' : NGO APCR Files Petition In Supreme Court Challenging Waqf Amendment Act

Following several petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, now the NGO Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the law as violating Articles 14, 25, 26 and 300A of the Indian Constitution.

The petition terms the new Act as an "alarming interference" into the religious affairs of the Muslim community, thereby diluting the fundamental purpose of waqf, which is deeply rooted practice in Quranic references and the Hadith since the time of Prophet Mohammad. 

The petition, filed before the Presidential assent was granted on April 5, states that the provisions pose a grave danger to the autonomy and effectiveness of the waqf Board, particularly through the insertion of Section 40, which severely undermines the principles of natural justice enshrined in the Waqf Act, 1995.

APCR has filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on April 5, through its General Secretary, Mr. Malik Mohatsim Khan

Grounds for challenge 

1. Substituting the title to Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development is misleading and contrary to the fundamental purpose of the Act. It is stated in the petition that the substitution of the term waqf is not a neutral change, it is a deliberate attempt to rewrite history and dismantle the cultural legacy of colonised communities. 

The term Waqf has deep-rooted religious, historical, and cultural significance, and its erasure reflects a colonial mindset aimed at diluting indigenous legal traditions under the guise of modernization...The Global South is actively engaged in decolonizing its legal and intellectual traditions, yet this legislative change reflects a redundant and regressive colonial sentiments to erase historical legacies and religious symbols under the garb of 'modernization. 

While the legislature advocates for restoring 'indigenous institutions' in other spheres, this amendment reinforces colonial language and frameworks. The original title of the principle Act does not create any burden on beneficiaries or the legal community. There is no compelling legal, administrative, or social necessity to replace the term Waqf, a universally recognized concept in both Islamic law and Indian jurisprudence.

2. The amendment arbitrarily interference with the religious affairs of the Muslim community, which similar restrictions do not apply to non-Muslim religious institution, thereby failing the test of fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination.

The inclusion of Non-Muslims in the religious affairs of the Muslim minority is not a step toward 'inclusivity' rather, it dilutes the autonomy of an already underrepresented community in India's institutional framework. The Sachar Committee Report (2006), presents compelling evidence of the abysmal socio-economic status and severe underrepresentation of Muslims in public institutions. In contrast, non-Muslim charitable institutions actively prohibit Muslim participation in their religious affairs, highlighting the discriminatory impact of this amendment.

It is stated that in States like Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, only Hindus are permitted to be members of the Hindu endowment institutions. However, waqf institutions are being targeted which violations principles of neutrality and secular governance.

Furthermore, any forced interference in religious administration risks igniting communal and social unrest, thereby threatening the secular fabric of the Constitution. It is neither justified nor necessary to impose such provisions when no similar demands are being placed on non-Muslim religious institutions. This selective encroachment on minority rights must therefore be struck down in the interest of justice, fairness, and constitutional integrity.

3. The petition has also challenges omission of Section 3(r), which had a provision on waqf by user doctrine. It is stated that this constitutes a deliberate weakening of the legal recognition granting to waqf properties. Further, the petition states that the omission would result in jeopardising the vast tracts of waqf property that have historically served religious and charitable purposes for the Muslim community and other-non Muslim communities as well.

This Hon'ble Court has previously acknowledged and validated this doctrine in M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das(The Ayodhya Verdict). The removal of this provision, therefore, represents an attempt to erode the foundational principles protecting Waqf properties and disrupts the delicate balance between religious autonomy and state oversight.

The omission of Section 3(r) from the principal Act is not only contrary to established judicial precedents but also sets a dangerous precedent for the arbitrary exclusion of long-recognized religious rights. Moreover, the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) has acknowledged that the effect of the deleted provision will apply prospectively, except in cases where disputes already exist. However, this additional proviso opens the floodgates to frivolous litigation, placing an unjust burden on individuals seeking to protect their legitimate rights over Waqf properties. Such an unnecessary amendment encroaches upon rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution, which ensures the protection of property rights.

4. The exclusion of disputed properties from recognition as waqf will escalate frivolous litigation by individuals or entities seeking to challenge existing waqf claims.

Disputes over waqf properties will arise drastically, leading to prolonged legal battles and uncertainty over religious properties. By excluding government properties, the amendment allows the state to take over lands previously recognized as waqf by user. This could affect mosques, dargahs, graveyards, and religious institutions built on lands now considered “government property.” There is also a risk of arbitrary classification of waqf lands as government property to facilitate acquisition.

It is further stated the amendment undermines the long-standing doctrine by placing additional conditions on recognition.

Historically, waqf properties were determined by continuous religious use, not by formal deeds or ownership records. This sudden shift in legal interpretation will weaken the waqf system in a nutshell. The Sachar Committee Report (2006) already highlighted the socio-economic disadvantages faced by Muslims. If waqf properties are excluded based on government claims or disputes, it will lead to a systematic decrease in religious and community assets available for the Muslim community.

The petition adds that the waqf board will face operational difficulties in protecting or managing waqf properties that were once waqf by user. Overall, the petition claims that the amendment violates Articles 25 and 26 as it constitutes an unconstitutional encroachment upon the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.

The petition has been drawn and filed by  Adv. Adeel Ahmad (AOR), Adv. Atul Yadav, Adv. M Huzaifa, Adv. Mohammad Mobashshir Aneeq, and Adv. Taqdees Fatima.