The Supreme Court last week decided that it would hear only five challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 which replaced the 1995 Act and sought to streamline the management of Waqf properties. “It is impossible to deal with 100 or 120...,” Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had said.
The pleas filed by Arshad Madani (Islamic scholar and 8th president of the Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind), Muhammad Jameel Merchant (Maharashtra-based businessman), Mohammed Fazlurrahim (General Secretary, All India Muslim Personal Law Board [AIMPLB]), Sheikh Noorul Hassan (Manipur MLA, National People’s Party – a tribal centric party) and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi are the five pleas that have been chosen to challenge the 2025 Amendments aka Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development (UMEED) Act, 2025.
The Supreme Court decided that these five pleas would be considered as lead petitions and the rest would be treated as intervention applications.
Though opposition-ruled states continue to oppose the new act, none of them were shortlisted among the final petitions challenging the new law despite pleas filed by individual politicians and political parties.
Tamil Nadu School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi on April 18 reiterated the State government’s opposition to the new Waqf law calling it “anti-people and anti-minority.” The DMK-led Tamil Nadu government was also one of the few state assemblies that passed a resolution against the bill before it was passed by the parliament.
Jammu & Kashmir government too passed a resolution opposing the new amendments. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee went as far as to declare that her government would not implement the law – which got the President’s nod on April 5, a day after it was passed in the Parliament by a slim majority.
Even as the debate against the new law moves from the parliament to the courts, BOOM explores if there is merit to Banerjee’s declaration.
Can states say no?
A State cannot refuse to implement a law passed by the parliament. According to the Constitution, all laws passed by the Union on matters under List I – the Union List, are binding on the states.
Article 245 of the Indian Constitution says the Parliament can make laws for the whole or part of the country; and Article 256 – ‘Obligation of States and the Union’ empowers the Centre to direct states to implement laws it has passed.
“The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose,” Article 256 of the Indian Constitution reads.
To defy these directives would invite adverse actions under Article 356, going as far as, allowing the president to presume a “failure of the constitutional machinery” in the state and impose presidential rule.
Also Read: Waqf Bill Passed: Battle Moves To SC, All You Need To Know
Can a state challenge laws passed by the Centre?
Article 131 empowers the Supreme Court to settle disputes between state governments or between the Centre and states. Under Article 131, a state can challenge an act passed by the Centre if it feels it is violative of fundamental rights, or if the state feels the Centre is encroaching on subject matters under List II – the State’s List, which is the exclusive domain of state legislature. The top court then decides on the merits of the case and its judgment is binding. River sharing disputes, State border disputes are some of the challenges the Supreme Court has dealt with between states.
In 2020, the Chhattisgarh government –ruled by the Congress at the time, moved the top court against the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act on the grounds that ‘police’ is a state subject and the NIA took away its power to probe crimes.
The same year, the governments of Kerela and Punjab were among the more than 140 challenges before the Supreme Court against the hotly contested Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). After the Parliament passed the CAA in December 2019, the Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal governments passed resolutions against the implementation of the CAA in the state.
But the question remains, are such resolutions enough? Do they have legal backing? The answer here is no. A resolution is simply a government’s opinion on an issue. Resolutions may arise from discussions on “public issues” or other topics and have no legal effect.
In March 2021, the Supreme Court said there was no harm in state assemblies passing resolutions against central laws. The then-Chief Justice of India SA Bobde orally observed these resolutions were just “opinions” and not backed by law.
Also Read: Video From Bangladesh Protests Falsely Viral As West Bengal Violence
Do states have the right to amend Central laws?
In India, according to Article 256, laws are made under three categories – the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List. The Centre and the State have exclusive jurisdiction on subject matters under the Union and the State List respectively. They may not encroach on either domain.
However, the Concurrent list – the third category, is where the Centre and the State meet. The Centre and the State can formulate laws on subject matters under this list allowing. These laws deal with issues that are of shared interest, allowing for some kind of uniformity across the country while giving states the flexibility to address local needs. Criminal laws, personal laws, education, forest etc are some examples of issues that fall under the concurrent list.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 falls under the concurrent list.
Article 254 clearly states that when the Parliament passes a law under the Union or Concurrent List then the laws passed by the Centre will prevail. A state government may add amendments to a law that may suit its local needs. The state government can only add and not subtract, delete or away with any provision passed by the Centre.
Article 254 also addresses conflicts that may arise between the Centre and the State. It introduces the doctrine of repugnancy which means any inconsistency or contradiction of the laws, statutes or contracts when applied to the same subject matter or facts.
Article 254 (2) says that a state law or amendment may prevail over laws passed by the Centre if it is approved and passed by the President after it has been reserved for their consideration.
