Supreme Court Hearing on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

September 15, 2025

The Supreme Court of India, in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2025, examined the constitutional validity of key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The petitioners argued that several amendments were violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A of the Constitution, while the Union of India defended the law as a necessary reform to address misuse of Waqf provisions.

Background of the Case

Multiple writ petitions challenged amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995 (renamed as the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995). The contentious provisions included Sections 3(r), 3C, 3D, 3E, 9, 14, 23, 36, 104, 107, 108, 108A, among others.

The primary challenges were against:

Deletion of “Waqf by User” (customary usage-based waqf).
Government property exemption (Section 3C).
Protected monuments provision (Section 3D).
Restrictions on Scheduled Tribe land (Section 3E).
Inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Councils/Boards.
Mandatory registration of all Waqfs (Section 36).
Changes in limitation and deletion of provisions enabling evacuee properties and non-Muslims to create waqfs.

Petitioners’ Arguments

Senior counsels including Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, A.M. Singhvi, C.U. Singh, and Huzefa Ahmadi argued that:

Expropriation of Waqf Properties
- The law’s stated aim of “protection” was in reality an attempt to weaken waqf holdings.
- Deletion of Waqf by User deprived communities of historically used properties.
Violation of Religious Rights
- Section 3(r) required five years of Islamic practice to create a waqf, which was discriminatory and against Articles 14 and 15.
- Section 3D voided waqf claims on monuments declared “protected,” infringing on Articles 25 and 26.
- Section 3E barred Scheduled Tribes from dedicating land as waqf, limiting their religious freedom.
Control and Representation Issues
- Sections 9 and 14 altered composition of Waqf Council/Boards, allowing non-Muslim majorities, undermining Muslim self-governance.
- Section 23 removed the requirement that CEOs of Boards be Muslim, placing control with government appointees.
Procedural Concerns
- Section 3C allowed unilateral designation of government land, stripping waqf ownership before tribunal review.
- Mandatory written deeds (Section 36) disregarded Islamic law, which recognizes oral waqf creation.
Other Restrictions
- Section 104 deletion barred non-Muslims from donating to waqfs.
- Section 107 applied limitation law, potentially barring waqf property claims.
- Section 108 (evacuee property waqfs) was removed, restricting historical dedications.

Respondents’ Arguments

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and supporting counsels defended the Act, stating:

Misuse of “Waqf by User”
- Instances showed large-scale encroachment of government land under the guise of waqf.
- Courts had repeatedly intervened in disputes where vast lands were wrongly declared as waqf.
Government Property Protection
- Section 3C ensured state-held land for citizens could not be converted into waqf.
- Any inquiry required due process, and tribunals retained final jurisdiction.
Council Representation
- Inclusion of a small number of non-Muslims ensured diversity in managing secular aspects of waqf, like finances and audits.
- Religious aspects remained unaffected.
Registration and Regulation
- History showed chronic misuse and non-registration of waqfs. Mandatory registration was consistent with reforms since 1923.
- Provisions aligned with recommendations of past inquiry committees.
Scheduled Tribe Land and Monuments
- Special constitutional protection under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules justified restrictions.
- The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) highlighted misuse of monuments declared as waqf.

Rejoinder by Petitioners

Petitioners stressed that Waqf by User was judicially recognized for over a century.
Section 3C lacked clear procedures, making it arbitrary.
Retrospective application of Sections 3D and 3E violated fundamental rights.
They argued that the amendments created an environment of state control over religious endowments, eroding community autonomy.

Court’s Observations (Interim Stage)

The Supreme Court emphasized:

Presumption of constitutionality applies to all legislation.
Interim relief (staying the law) is rare and requires proof of lack of legislative competence or blatant violation of fundamental rights.
Legislative history since the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923 showed continuing concerns about waqf mismanagement.
Courts must weigh the balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and prima facie unconstitutionality before suspending statutes.

The matter has been reserved for final hearing, but the Court acknowledged that several provisions involve deep constitutional questions requiring thorough adjudication.

Conclusion

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has triggered one of the most significant constitutional debates on religious endowments in India. While the government justifies it as a reform against misuse and encroachment, petitioners see it as an attack on religious autonomy and minority rights. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will determine how far the state can regulate religious property under the Constitution.