'Singles Out Muslim Endowments For Govt Intrusion' : RJD MP Manoj Jha Approaches Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Two Members of Parliament from Rashtriya Janta Dal, representing the State of Bihar, Dr Manoj Kumar Jha and Faiyaz Ahmad, have filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 on grounds of violation of Articles 1, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A of the Constitution.

The Petitioners contend that these amendments fundamentally weaken the administration of waqfs, erode the original legislative intent of the 1995 Act, and facilitate largescale government interference in Muslim religious endowments.

The petitioners have challenged Clauses 2A, 3(v), 3(vii), 3(ix), 4, 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(f), 6(a), 6(c), 6(d), 7(a)(ii), 7(a)(iii), 7(a)(iv), 7(b), 8(ii), 8(iii), 8(iv), 9, 11, 12(i), 14, 15, 16, 17(a), 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21(b), 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28(a), 28(b), 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39(a), 40, 40A,41, 42, 43(a), 43(b), and 44 of the 2025 Act.

It has been stated that the most radical change is the elimination of "waqf by user" in Section 3(r).

By removing the protections for Waqf by user or reconfiguring the board compositions can severely hamper the ability of the community to maintain educational or cultural institutions associated with these Waqfs. The Petitioners humbly submit that this, in turn, impairs the fundamental rights of minorities to “establish and administer educational institutions of their choice” under Article 30.

The petition filed through AoR Fauzia Shakil notes that the Courts have accepted that where property has long been used by the Muslim community for religious or pious purposes, it acquires the status of a waqf, even absent a formal deed.

This principle, known as “waqf by user,” was unequivocally endorsed by a Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court in M. Siddiq (D) thr. L.Rs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., (2020) 1 SCC 1. By deleting sub-clause (i) from Section 3(r), which recognized waqf by user, the Amendment Act imposes a requirement of a formal deed. This legislative shift jeopardizes a “major percentage of existing waqfs,” many of which predate formal registration and rely on usage-based dedication. By eliminating waqf by user, the Amendment Act opens these age-old religious institutions to indefinite challenges or claims by private or governmental authorities.

Particularly, the petitioners have stated that despite the Indian Courts upholding the principle "once a waqf, always a waqf" and that waqf could validly arise through user-based dedication or oral declarations, the 2025 Amendment introduces "sweeping changes," including the elimination of waqf by user. 

The petition also notes that the 2025 Act has narrowed who may create a waqf, which now requires a formal deed and showcasing that the waqif has practised Islam for 5 years. It mandates the appointment of non-Muslim membership for the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards, thereby infringing upon denominational rights.

In effect, the Amendment Act singles out Muslim endowments for intrusive government control, thereby, discriminating on the basis of religion in violation of Articles 14 and 15. It dismantles denominational autonomy enshrined in Article 26, infringes on the property rights of a minority community protected by Article 300A, and disregards constitutional safeguards intended to protect minority cultures (Articles 29 and 30) and personal dignity (Article 21). 

It also removes the requirement that the Chief Executive Officer of a waqf board be a Muslim and grants administrative bodies the power to strip properties of their waqf status upon the mere assertion that such properties belong to the Government.

Particularly, the Amendment Act removes mandatory Muslim membership from pivotal positions in the waqf administration structures. This is reflected in the amended Sections 9 and 14, which introduce the proviso that two members appointed to these bodies, excluding ex-officio members, shall be non-Muslims.

By mandating non-Muslims in bodies exclusively dealing with a Muslim charitable trust, the Act undermines denominational autonomy guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC 412, this Hon'ble Court held that while the State can regulate religious institutions to prevent maladministration, it cannot intrude so far as to dismantle the management by those who profess the relevant faith.

The petitioners have also challenged Sections 3D and 3E, which they state threaten to invalidate even longstanding waqf declarations if the property is claimed to be a "protected monument" or a "protected area". It deprives members of Scheduled Tribes of a right to create waqfs at all if they convert to Islam.

Such provisions raise serious concerns under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution. They also violate the doctrine of non-retrogression, recognized by this Hon'ble Court in 'Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India', (2018) 10 SCC1, by rolling back historically recognized protections for Muslim religious endowments.

Most importantly, the petition contends that the Amendment Act violates the object and purpose of the Waqf Act, 1995. It is stated that the Amendment not only fails to improve the administration of waqf properties but also attempts to reconfigure the nature of waqf itself, thereby dismantling core safeguards such as recognition of waqf by user. In addition, it empowers government actors to challenge and usurp the character of age-old waqfs.

If the amendment distorts or defeats the basic objective of the original enactment, it can be struck down as ultra vires or unconstitutional. Reliance in this regard is placed on K. Nagaraj & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1985) 1 SCC 523. The impugned Amendment Act, by dismantling the protective framework around waqfs, disrupts the 1995 Act's entire rationale, thus failing this test.

The petitioners have also challenged the provision which removes the limitation for challenging waqf beyond two years (the 1995 Act provided a limitation period maximum of 2 years).

This indefinite re-opening fosters uncertainty and instability, as Waqf institutions must constantly remain on guard for potential lawsuits. The Petitioners humbly submit that it also invites harassing and vexatious litigation, particularly if the property is valuable or of strategic importance, effectively weakening the philanthropic character of Waqf by forcing administrators to commit time and resources to repeated litigation.

The indefinite re-opening of challenges to Waqf property is not merely a legal or technical matter. It is submitted that Waqf properties often include historically significant mosques dargahs, graveyards, shrines, and other places deeply tied to the religious sentiments of the Muslim community. Allowing outsiders or other communities, or even the Government, to question the Waqf status beyond a finite time limit can lead to community unrest, fueling unnecessary disputes that risk harming social harmony. It is submitted that in an already sensitive environment regarding property disputes that intersect with religious sentiments, the Amendment Act's approach heightens potential controversies. This is antithetical to the Constitutional aspiration of unity and fraternity, recognized in the Preamble. It is humbly submitted the legislation should aim to reduce potential communal flashpoints, not expand them.