Today, On 15th April, The Supreme Court will consider a fresh plea challenging the provisions of the 2025 Waqf Act, with the Chief Justice stating, “We give dates mostly within a week” for cases involving mentioning slips. The petitioners argue the amendments infringe on Muslim religious autonomy and the management of waqf properties.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court agreed to consider a new plea challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
A bench consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar acknowledged the request made by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain to list the fresh plea for hearing.
The Chief Justice stated,
“All matters where mentioning slips are given, we give dates mostly within a week,”
Currently, there are ten petitions, including one filed by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, scheduled for hearing on April 16 before a three-judge bench that includes the Chief Justice and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan.
Also Read: Applications Filed in Supreme Court Supporting Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
The new plea, brought forth by Hari Shankar Jain and Mani Munjal against the Union of India, the Ministry of Minority Affairs, and the Central Waqf Council, contests the constitutional validity of provisions in the Waqf Act, 1995 as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025.
The plea argues that these provisions violate Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 300A of the Constitution of India by creating an “imbalance and disharmony in Indian society” and offering “undue advantages” to the Muslim community.
The petition claims that the Waqf Boards, empowered by these legal provisions, have gained excessive authority, leading to widespread occupation of government and private lands throughout the country. It highlights that the public at large is aggrieved by the unlawful seizure of private and public properties, with over 120 petitions pending in various high courts regarding these issues.
The plea references a 2025 statement by the Union Home Minister, noting a “sharp increase” in Waqf-registered land from 18 lakh acres in 2013 to 39 lakh acres in 2025. It also raises concerns about discrepancies in Waqf land records, particularly regarding the loss of data on leased properties.
As a result, the plea seeks a declaration that non-Muslims should not be subject to the provisions of the Waqf Act and requests that the Centre recover “Gram Panchayat and other public lands” recorded as Waqf. It also aims to recognize the right of non-Muslims to challenge Waqf decisions in civil courts and to strike down several provisions of the amended law as “unconstitutional.”
Also Read: Waqf Act 2025 Explained: Why Converts Must Be Muslims for 5 Years to Make Waqf Donations
The petition further notes that following the partition in 1947, many Muslim residents migrated to Pakistan, while numerous Hindus relocated to India from the newly established territory of Pakistan, leaving behind their valuable properties. In response, Parliament enacted the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, to accommodate these migrants.
The properties of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan were vested in the Government of India, leading to the assertion that “the religious character of the properties in possession of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan lost its sanctity and same no longer remained as Waqf or religious property.”
Therefore, it argues that Migrant properties should not be classified as religious properties and should not be transferred to Waqf boards.
Additionally, the plea contests Section 3(r) of the law, which includes Shamlat Deh (Gram Panchayat land) in the definition of Waqf land. It challenges the validity of Sections 4, 6(1), and 7(1) for lacking adequate safeguards for public participation and the protection of non-Muslim interests.
Also Read: PM Modi Targets Congress Over Waqf Act: “Congress Only Appeased Fundamentalists”
It also objects to Section 8, which mandates state funding for Waqf land surveys, claiming this amounts to the misuse of public funds.
Finally, it questions the legality of Section 28 of the Act, which allows the Waqf Board to issue binding directions to district magistrates, and challenges the validity of Section 108 of the Waqf Act (before its repeal in 2025), which permitted the transfer of Evacuee Properties abandoned during Partition to Waqf Boards.
The petition asserts that this transfer was unconstitutional and violated the property rights of displaced Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, calling for the restoration of such properties to the Government.