The Supreme Court is being inundated with pleas for and against the Waqf (Amendment) Act (WAA), 2025 ahead of its hearing on April 16. Political parties, private individuals, religious organisations and states have filed pleas shifting the hotly contested issue from the parliament to a courtroom.
Earlier this month, the parliament, in its Budget Session, passed the WAA, by a slim majority following marathon debates that went on till the early hours of the morning in both the houses – Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. President of India Droupadi Murmu greenlit the bill passing it into an act days after the bill passed parliament muster by a narrow majority.
AIMIM leader Asaddudin Owaisi and Congress leader Mohammad Jawed were the first to challenge the bill hours after it was passed in the parliament by a slim majority. Since then, many others have joined the melee.
Organisations like All India Muslim Personal Law Board, political parties like Tamil Nadu’s DMK, Andhra Pradesh’s YSR Congress Party, politicians like Asaduddin Owaisi, Mohammed Jawed, Manoj Jha and Mahua Moitra have filed pleas challenging the constitutionality of the WAA. At least six states – Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Rajasthan, Assam, and Maharashtra, and private individuals have filed pleas showing their support of the act.
The overarching plea, similar across several petitions argues that the new Waqf Act essentially “threatens” to further marginalise the Muslim minority by encroaching on their religious identity and practices. This, the petitions say, undermines one’s right to freely practice their religion. BOOM recaps a few arguments made for and against the Act.
Introduces administrative review of one’s faith – All India Muslim Personal Law Board
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board – an organization that defends and protects Muslim personal law, argues that the concept of “waqf”—its creation and its administration—are religious in nature since it is mandated by Islam.
“Any believer in Islam, if he or she wants to create a ‘waqf’ or he or she becomes administrator of the ‘waqf’ (Muttawalli), he shall essentially be giving effect to his or her religious belief,” the plea read.
The act violates one’s fundamental right to religion on several grounds as it creates “multiple hurdles” in the creation of waqf by imposing certain conditions. Secondly, when the act stipulates that only Muslims practicing their faith for more than five years can dedicate their property to waqf it introduces a concept of “administrative review of one’s faith and conscience.”
The certification of what constitutes a “practicing” or “non-practicing Muslim” is a violation of the right of conscience, the plea read.
JPC violated parliamentary procedure: Mahua Moitra
TMC leader and Lok Sabha MP Mahua Moitra says the Joint Parliamentary Committee that reviewed the draft Waqf Amendment Bill violated procedures. Moitra submits that the JPC’s draft report was shared with the lawmakers a day before it was “final for adoption”.
It was “practically impossible to read [the report],” Moitra’s plea alleged.
Moitra further contended that the dissent notes submitted by member of the Opposition who were part of the JPC was “unreasonably” and “arbitrarily” redacted from the final report. “The redaction of the dissenting viewpoints and submissions undermined the Parliament's prerogative to consider all the views contained in the report prior to arriving at its independent conclusions during the deliberative process,” the plea further read.
Amendments diverge from the original intent of the 1995 Act: Manoj Jha
RJD leader and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha said the amendments to the Waqf Act “fundamentally weaken the administration of waqfs, erode the original legislative intent of the 1995 Act, and facilitate large-scale government interference in Muslim religious endowments.”
By changing the definition of a “waqf by user,” introducing non-Muslim actors on the board and the council and allowing the “government to unilaterally declare waqf properties to be public land”, the act not only fails to “to improve the administration of waqf properties” but attempts to “reconfigure” the nature of waqf itself by dismantling a core safeguard.
“In addition, it empowers government actors to challenge and usurp the character of age-old waqfs,” the plea read.
Drastic overhaul unnecessary and alarming interference
The Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) argued that the “drastic overhaul” is not only unnecessary but also an “alarming interference” into the religious affairs of the Muslim community. The bill (the petition was filed before it became an act) dilutes the “fundamental purpose of Waqf” which is a practice “deeply rooted” in Quranic references and the Hadith since the time of Prophet Mohammad.
The All India Jurists Association said the 2025 Act “fundamentally distorts the nature, legal protection, and religious autonomy of waqfs as envisaged under the parent statute”.
The retrospective removal of a “waqf” status from properties declared as ‘ancient monuments’ under The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, extinguishes centuries-old waqfs such as mosques and dargahs which is a direct affront to the Muslim community’s rights, it added
“This legislative targeting is discriminatory, especially as similarly situated Hindu religious sites retain their religious character despite ASI protection…” the petition read.
A tale of pros and cons: Tribal rights at risk
Several pleas have sought to defend tribal rights. While some have defended the new act by highlighting its merits, there are those that have challenged the 2025 amendments by highlighting their deficiencies and its impact on the tribals.
The All India Jurists Association argues that the amendments introduce “a categorical bar on members of Scheduled Tribes (STs) from making waqfs thereby excluding an entire class of citizens—including tribal Muslims — from participating in the religious act of charitable endowment…”.
“This blanket restriction targets a vulnerable community and arbitrarily curtails their religious freedoms,” the petition said.
However, the Jay Omkar Bhilala Samaj Sangathan, a Madhya Pradesh-based tribal rights organization, argued that the protection of tribal land is a matter of great concern as there are numerous instances where their land has been “snatched away” through illegal means.
The plea alleged that valuable tribal land have been encroached upon based on “an alleged un-existing Wakf and thereafter regularized under unamended Wakf Act, 1995 [prior to present amendment].”
Thus, the 2025 Act is “a much-awaited” amendments that reflect the “Government’s commitment for protection of tribals” and the Parliament’s response for “the long-felt need of the tribals”.
States divided on Waqf Amendments
The BJP-ruled states and those ruled by the Opposition are greatly divided on the 2025 Amendments. Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh governments have moved SC opposing the amendments while West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has categorically stated that she would not allow the act to be implemented in the state.
At least six BJP-ruled states have moved Supreme Court in support of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. Most of the petitions more or less support similar contentions.
Rajasthan government said the 2025 Amendments are a “culmination of extensive legislative and institutional deliberations” and “far from being violative of constitutional guarantees, the Amendment Act introduces structural reforms, statutory clarity, and procedural safeguards aimed at remedying endemic problems in the administration of Waqf properties”.
Maharashtra submitted that the proposed Act aims to bring about a “transformational shift” in the administration of Waqf properties and envisions a “streamlined”, “technologically driven”, and “legally robust framework” for managing Waqf assets.
Chhattisgarh said the amendments introducing Muslim women and non-Muslim members on the board and council intend to make it “more inclusive” for its better governance and administration.
Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Assam and Haryana support the introduction of a “uniform” Waqf administration that address systemic issues such as “incomplete surveys of Waqf properties”, “backlog of cases before Waqf tribunals and boards”, “inadequate financial oversight by Mutawallis”, and “irregularities in the mutation and registration of Waqf properties”.
