The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has been challenged before the Supreme Court on multiple constitutional grounds, with the Union Government defending the amendments as necessary for transparency, public interest, and preservation of national heritage.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has emerged as the subject of one of the most significant constitutional challenges in recent years. Close to one hundred petitions filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court contest the constitutional validity of several key provisions of the amended Act, raising concerns under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution. Petitioners contend that the amendments violate the fundamental rights of the Muslim community, particularly with respect to their ability to create, manage, and preserve religious endowments.
In response, the Union Government has filed a detailed counter-affidavit robustly defending the amendments. The Government asserts that the petitions themselves are contrary to the settled “basic tenets of judicial review” and that there exists a strong “presumption of constitutionality” in favour of Parliamentary legislation.
The Centre has emphasized that the amendments are aimed at safeguarding public interest, preserving national heritage, modernizing waqf administration, and preventing misuse and encroachments over public and private properties.
The affidavit highlights that far from infringing upon fundamental rights, the amendments seek to balance religious autonomy with principles of transparency, secular administration, and public welfare. It further assures that all parties continue to retain full rights to challenge administrative decisions before specialized Waqf Tribunals and the High Courts, thus ensuring access to judicial remedies and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Against this background, the following is a detailed analysis of the ten major grounds on which the petitioners have challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and the Union Government’s specific responses to each contention.
Extinguishing the Waqf Character of ASI-Listed Sites
Provision:
Section 3D, introduced by Clause 5 of the Amendment Act, mandates that properties notified as ancient monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act) shall cease to be treated as waqf.
Ground of Challenge:
Petitioners argue that this provision infringes the Muslim community’s rights under Articles 25 and 26, stripping them of the ability to manage historic religious sites that continue to serve as places of worship. They also highlight that certain Hindu temples, like Jagannath Temple in Puri and Virupaksha Temple in Hampi, remain under religious administration despite ASI protection, indicating discriminatory treatment, violating Articles 14 and 15.
Union’s Response:
The Union strongly justified the provision by emphasizing that
“management of heritage sites must remain with conservation authorities,”
not religious bodies. It noted that ASI has repeatedly submitted that Waqf Boards’ control
“restricts conservation and maintenance works”
and that
“unauthorized additions and alterations” have adversely impacted the authenticity and integrity of protected monuments.
The affidavit states that
“declaration under the AMASR Act changes the character of a property from religious to national heritage”
and this shift serves a compelling public interest.
The Union also clarifies that
religious access may still be permitted under conservation rules, but proprietary or management rights are removed to ensure uniform treatment of monuments.
Thus, “retroactive clarification ensures that all protected monuments are treated uniformly and prevents competing claims from undermining heritage management.”
Blanket Disqualification of Scheduled Tribe Members from Creating Waqf
Provision:
Section 3E, introduced through Clause 5 of the Amendment Act, bars Scheduled Tribe members from creating waqfs.
Ground of Challenge:
Petitioners argue that this provision is overbroad and unconstitutional, as it ignores the reality that many Scheduled Tribes include Muslim converts.
The restriction allegedly violates Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26, preventing an entire class of citizens from exercising religious rights based solely on their community identity.
Union’s Response:
The Union defended the disqualification as necessary to safeguard tribal land rights under the special protections afforded by Schedule V and VI of the Constitution.
The affidavit states that there is a genuine concern over
“erosion of the distinct identity of Scheduled Tribes and alienation of their lands through waqf claims.”
The government emphasized that preventing Scheduled Tribes from creating waqf “is necessary to protect their distinct culture, land rights, and autonomy” and ensures that public purpose protections for tribal lands are not diluted through religious dedications.
Reduction of Muslim Representation in Waqf Governance Bodies
Provisions:
- Clause 10 amends Section 9 of the 1995 Act concerning the composition of the Central Waqf Council.
- Clause 12 amends Section 14 regarding State Waqf Boards’ composition.
Now, non-Muslims may be appointed to these bodies, reducing the previously exclusive Muslim membership.
Ground of Challenge:
Petitioners contend that waqf institutions, being intrinsically Islamic, must be governed and administered exclusively by Muslims. Diluting Muslim-majority control is argued to violate Articles 25, 26, and 29, undermining minority autonomy over religious and charitable institutions.
Union’s Response:
The Union responded that
“secular activities under Section 32, such as management of property and financial administration, are distinct from purely religious functions.”
It stated that the Central Waqf Council remains Muslim-majority — with
“at least ten out of twenty-two members being Muslim” — and similarly, State Waqf Boards retain a Muslim majority with “only a maximum of three non-Muslim members”.
The affidavit further argued that secular management functions — like accounting, leases, and public interactions — justify inclusivity. It pointed out that
“Article 26 does not confer an absolute right to administer properties in a manner that defeats secular principles” and stressed that the amendment aims to bring “greater inclusivity and transparency” without infringing religious freedoms.
Application of the Limitation Act to Waqf Properties
Provision:
Clause 44 of the Amendment Act extends the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings involving claims over waqf properties.
Ground of Challenge:
Petitioners argue that waqf properties have historically enjoyed protection under the principle of
“once a waqf, always a waqf,”
preventing adverse possession or time-barred claims. Applying limitation periods, they claim, undermines this protection and encourages encroachment, violating Article 300A.
Union’s Response:
The Union argued that applying the Limitation Act is necessary to harmonize waqf property disputes with broader property law standards and to
“reduce endless litigation.”
The affidavit emphasizes that unlimited claims to land are untenable in a modern legal system, and a reasonable limitation period
“brings certainty and finality to land disputes.”
It was asserted that application of limitation periods serves public interest, deters fraudulent and stale claims, and is consistent with the rule of law.
Dilution of Finality of Waqf Tribunal Decisions
Provision:
Amendments to Section 83 allow for appeals to the High Court against decisions of the Waqf Tribunal, thus removing the finality earlier attached to Tribunal orders.
Ground of Challenge:
Petitioners argue that the Tribunal’s decisions, previously final under the 1995 Act, mirrored similar finality provided for religious endowment tribunals under Hindu and other religious trust laws. Opening appeals to High Courts, they claim, subjects waqf administration to excessive and endless litigation, infringing upon Articles 14 and 15.
Union’s Response:
The Union rebutted these claims by arguing that broader appeal rights enhance access to justice rather than diminish it.
The affidavit stressed that
“expanding judicial remedies strengthens procedural fairness and reinforces rule of law.”
Allowing appeals ensures that
“serious errors of fact or law can be corrected,”
and aligns waqf adjudication with modern judicial standards.
The Union further highlighted that finality provisions cannot be absolute and must balance judicial efficiency with the right to seek redress, especially given the complexity of waqf-related disputes.
The Supreme Court’s adjudication of these constitutional questions will have far-reaching implications not only for the future of waqf administration but also for the balance between religious autonomy and public interest regulation in India.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE