TVK chief and actor Vijay approached the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the Waqf Act. His petition adds to a series of similar pleas already filed in the apex court.
Chennai: Actor-turned-politician Vijay, president of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, has approached the Supreme Court to contest the constitutional validity of the Waqf legislation.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna is set to hear on April 16 over a dozen petitions, including one from All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi, challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The three-judge bench, which also includes Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan, will consider these petitions, as noted on the Supreme Court’s official website.
In addition to Owaisi’s petition, the court will review filings from AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights, Arshad Madani, Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, Anjum Kadari, Taiyyab Khan Salmani, Mohd Shafi, Mohd Fazlurrahim, and RJD leader Manoj Jha. Several other petitions are pending listing before the bench by the Supreme Court registry.
On April 8, the Centre filed a caveat in the Supreme Court, requesting a hearing before any orders are issued on the matter.
A caveat is a legal notice filed to ensure that no orders are made without the opportunity for the filing party to be heard.
Also Read: DMK Leader V Senthil Balaji’s Remand Extended in Money Laundering Case Till March 21
The Union government notified the Waqf (Amendment) Act on April 8, which received President Droupadi Murmu’s assent on April 5 after contentious debates in Parliament. The legislation passed the Rajya Sabha with 128 votes in favor and 95 against, while the Lok Sabha approved it with 288 supporting votes and 232 opposing.
Key petitioners also include the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, DMK, Congress MPs Imran Pratapgarhi and Mohd Jawed, and CPI leader D Raja.
The ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu has taken the matter to the Supreme Court through its deputy general secretary A Raja, stating,
“Despite widespread opposition, the Waqf Amendment Bill was passed by the Union government without proper consideration of the objections raised by the members of the JPC (joint parliamentary committee) and the other stakeholders.”
The party emphasized that the immediate implementation of the Act infringes upon the rights of approximately 50 lakh Muslims in Tamil Nadu and 20 crore Muslims nationwide.
In addition to political parties, various Muslim organizations, including AIMPLB, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, and the Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema a Sunni Muslim scholarly group in Kerala have filed separate petitions in the Supreme Court.
AIMPLB spokesperson SQR Ilyas expressed that “their petition strongly opposes the amendments passed by Parliament, labeling them arbitrary, discriminatory and based on exclusion.”
He noted that these amendments not only violate fundamental rights under articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution but also reveal the government’s intent to exert control over Waqf administration, thereby marginalizing the Muslim minority’s management of its own religious endowments.
Articles 25 and 26 guarantee freedom of conscience, the right to practice and propagate religion, and the right to establish and manage institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
Congress MP Jawed’s petition claims that the Act imposes “arbitrary restrictions” on Waqf properties and their management, undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community. In his separate plea, AIMIM chief Owaisi argued that the legislation removes various protections previously accorded to Waqfs, similar to those available to Hindu, Jain, and Sikh religious and charitable endowments.
The Association for the Protection of Civil Rights, an NGO, has also challenged the law’s constitutional validity in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan requested that the law be declared unconstitutional for violating “articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300-A of the Constitution.”