New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India is set to hear today at 2 PM a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The focus of today’s proceedings will be on the question of interim relief.
On Wednesday, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, indicated its intention to issue an interim order with three key directives. However, following requests from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and other counsels representing the respondents, the bench deferred the matter to today.
Proposed Interim Measures
The proposed interim directions by the bench include:
-
Protection of Declared Waqf Properties: Properties already declared as Waqfs—whether through legal deed or user—must not be de-notified while the court is hearing the matter.
-
Suspension of Collector Inquiry Clause: The proviso in the amended Act that states a property will not be considered Waqf while a Collector’s inquiry into its status as government land is ongoing shall not be implemented.
-
Board Composition: Membership of State Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council shall be limited to Muslims, barring ex-officio members.
A Flood of Legal Challenges
As many as 73 petitions have been filed against the amended law, with the opposition comprising a broad coalition of political leaders, religious organizations, civil society groups, and even some Hindu petitioners.
The Waqf Amendment Bill, passed earlier this month after prolonged debates in both Houses of Parliament, received Presidential assent from President Droupadi Murmu on April 5. While the government defends the legislation as a step toward improving transparency and efficiency in Waqf property management, critics argue it infringes upon religious freedoms and undermines constitutional safeguards.
In anticipation of the legal pushback, the Centre has filed a caveat urging the Supreme Court to hear its side before granting any interim relief.
States Back Centre in Court
Seven state governments—Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Haryana, and Uttarakhand—have sought to intervene in support of the Centre. These states maintain that the amendments are legally sound, non-discriminatory, and essential for modernizing Waqf administration and curbing misuse.
Who’s Opposing the Law?
Political Leaders:
High-profile petitioners include AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MPs Manoj Kumar Jha and Faiyyaz Ahmad, and Congress MP Mohammad Jawed.
Religious Organisations:
The Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, led by Maulana Arshad Madani, are among the key religious bodies challenging the amendments.
Political Parties:
Parties opposing the Act include Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI, YSR Congress, Samajwadi Party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), RJD, JDU, AIMIM, AAP, and the Indian Union Muslim League.
Others:
Hindu petitioners advocate Hari Shankar Jain and Noida resident Parul Khera have also filed challenges, alleging that the law enables unlawful encroachment on government and Hindu religious lands.
Legal and Constitutional Concerns
Petitioners have flagged several controversial provisions in the Act:
-
Abolition of Waqf Board Elections: Seen as eroding democratic representation.
-
Inclusion of Non-Muslim Members: Criticised as infringing on the community’s right to self-govern religious affairs.
-
Dilution of Property Safeguards: Especially for undocumented Waqf properties and the principle of “Waqf by user.”
-
Scheduled Tribe Exclusion: A clause preventing STs from creating Waqfs is viewed as discriminatory.
-
Expanded Executive Control: Raising fears of arbitrary state interference.
-
Heritage Concerns: Worries that historic Waqf sites may lose protection.
-
State Board Autonomy Reduced: The Act introduces 35 amendments that may shift control toward the central government.
A Defining Legal Moment
With far-reaching consequences for religious rights, land governance, and minority protections, today’s hearing is expected to be a pivotal moment in the ongoing national debate over secularism, constitutional rights, and government oversight of religious endowments.
