A batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The petitioners, including MPs Mohammad Jawed and Asaduddin Owaisi, argued that the law unfairly targets the Muslim community, imposing stricter rules for registering waqf properties not applicable to endowments of other religions.
New Delhi, May 20, 2025 – A group of senior advocates on Tuesday argued before the Supreme Court that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 unfairly targets the Muslim community and violates their constitutional rights by imposing strict and unique conditions on the registration of waqf properties. They claimed that no other religion faces such harsh requirements for religious endowments.
Senior Advocates Rajeev Dhavan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioners, made these submissions before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih.
“It is only the Muslim religion, where property has been dealt with in this way. We are a secular nation. A client of mine, who is Sikh, says I want to contribute to the waqf and I believe this property should not be taken away. This case affects Article 25, 26, 29 … Article 29 is the right to preserve culture … Take that away, and entire secular edifice that your lordships have built time and time again (will be taken away),” said Dhavan.
Singhvi questioned the requirement to prove that a person has been practicing Islam for 5 or 10 years before making a waqf.
“Endowments are there in every religion. Which other religion while making a religious endowment is asked for proof of practicing that religion for 5 years or 10 years? This provision goes on short ground of violating Article 15,” he argued.
Ahmadi added, “Ipso facto, it is retrospective and virtually by sleight of hand, my entire waqf gets obliterated. Argument on Article 15 is (important). This only singles out one particular community.”
The Court observed that the 2025 amendment has brought in serious consequences for non-registration of waqfs, something that wasn’t there in the older law. Previously, only the mutawalli (manager) was affected, but now the waqf itself is at risk.
The case concerns petitions demanding a stay on the new law. Earlier, the Court had said it would consider interim relief on three points:
(1) waqf by user,
(2) nomination of non-Muslims to Waqf Councils, and
(3) identification of government land as waqf.
The Central Government had earlier promised that it would not enforce certain provisions of the amendment—like the formation of new Waqf Councils and the power to de-notify waqf properties—for now.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the Court to limit the discussion to the three issues already identified.
“The Court had earmarked three issues. We had filed our response to these three issues. However written submissions of petitioner now exceed to several other issues. I have filed my affidavit in response to these three issues. My request is to confine it to the three issues only,” Mehta submitted.
But Kapil Sibal, also for the petitioners, opposed this.
“The then CJI said we will hear the case and see what interim relief has to be granted. Now we cannot say confine to three issues. This is about capture of waqf lands,” he said. Singhvi supported him, saying, “Yes, there cannot be any piecemeal hearing.”
Background
The Lok Sabha passed the law on April 3, followed by Rajya Sabha on April 4, and it got Presidential assent on April 5. Several petitions, including from Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, have challenged the law. Six BJP-ruled States—Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam—have filed applications supporting the amendment.
Petitioners say the removal of “waqf by user” from the law will hurt old mosques, graveyards, and other religious properties that have no formal documentation but have existed for centuries.
The Centre, defending the law, said the change was needed to stop misuse. It said that after the 2013 amendment, waqf claims increased by 116%, often being used to wrongly label private or government land as waqf.
Today’s Hearing
Sibal argued that the new law will make it easier for the government to take over waqf lands.
“This Act is for waqf protection but aimed at capturing the waqf. The law is designed in such a way that waqf property is taken away without following any process. The officer deciding is a government officer and while it is decided the property ceases to be a waqf and anybody can create a dispute. Now come to what is a waqf. It is an endowment to Allah/God. This dedication cannot be transferred to anybody. Once a waqf always a waqf,” he said.
He added that while governments do not fund mosques or burial grounds, people often donate their land for such purposes privately.
“Under our Constitution, State cannot possibly finance religious institution. State cannot finance a mosque for it’s upkeep, a burial ground has to be made through private property. So people often at the end of life dedicate their properties as waqf. There is no chadhava in temples. Mosques and graveyards do not have 2000 or 3000 crores corpus,” he said.
“But I go to dargahs.. it is often done,” said CJI Gavai.
“I am talking about mosques,” replied Sibal.
The Bench asked whether registration of waqfs was ever truly mandatory. Sibal said that earlier, if a waqf wasn’t registered, only the mutawalli could be removed. Now, the entire waqf could be declared void.
“So nothing else. So on account of non-registration nothing could happen.. We will take your statement as stated. We will record it then. So from 1913 to 2013, though there was a provision for registration of waqf, there were no consequences for non-compliance except removal of muttawali,” the CJI noted.
Sibal said under the new law, if a waqf site is declared an ancient monument, it will no longer be waqf.
“Yes people still pray at Khajuraho temple though it is preserved as an ancient monument. Does it (new Waqf law) take away your right to pray,” asked the Bench.
“Yes, declaration as an ancient monument or protected site under the 1958.. such waqf property shall be void. Once waqf is void I can no longer go there,” Sibal replied.
Sibal criticised the rule that one must be a practicing Muslim for at least 5 years to make a waqf.
“Who will decide that then? If I am on my death bed and I want to make a waqf I have to prove that I have been practicing Muslim. This is per se unconstitutional per se,” he said.
Sibal pointed out that now, a majority of Waqf Council members could be non-Muslims, which was never the case earlier.
“Next right to manage waqf property taken away. Majority of the Central waqf council members are non-Muslims. Section 9 of the new act. It is 12 non-Muslims and 10 Muslims. Earlier, it was all Muslims. Now it is all nominated,” he said.
The Bench noted that Muslims are not barred from being appointed, to which Sibal responded, “Unless the court interprets it in such a way that all other members are Muslims… Every religious endowment .. not a single person is a Muslim or non-Hindu.”
When the Court mentioned Bodh Gaya, Sibal said, “That is because the place of worship is for both Hindus and Buddhists. Bodh Gaya Act says it. I knew you will ask this.”
Sibal said the government now has more control over waqf properties through appointed officers. The CEO of the board may even be a non-Muslim.
“It is complete departure and an attempt to take over through creeping accusations the waqf properties,” he said.
The CJI reminded that laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, but added, “Otherwise we know what is happening (I won’t say anything more).”
Sibal raised serious concerns about Section 3C, which allows the property to lose its waqf status just because a dispute is raised—even before any inquiry is completed.
“So no judicial process and then you force the waqif to go to court and challenge the decision of the collector and by the time decision comes the property has ceased to be a waqf,” he said.
“Yes before inquiry starts it is no longer a waqf,” he added.
Sibal warned that any village panchayat or private individual can now raise a dispute and the waqf property will immediately lose its status.
“This section usurping my rights is unjustly arbitrary and violative of my rights,” he said.
Rajeev Dhavan said that the law is against many Supreme Court judgments, including Babri Masjid, which upheld “waqf by user.”
“This act is in teeth of number of constitution bench decisions. Babri Masjid etc which held ‘waqf by user’ is a part of Waqf,” he said.
He added, “This is a first time that there has been redefinition of religion in a religious act.”
Singhvi criticised the constant pressure on Muslims to prove their religion and the harassment of registration.
“It is a recipe to make the applicant keep visiting office to have waqf registration forever. This is just to infuse terror… Which religion endowment asks you to prove that you have been practicing it for last 5 years etc? Who asks them proof of religion?” he asked.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi flagged Section 3D, which says that any waqf property declared as a protected monument will no longer be a waqf.
“These amendments are ipso facto retrospective and all Waqfs by a touch of hand gets obliterated due to section 3D. This Act also singles out one community… Impact of Section 3D requires absolute staying as the impact is drastic and it will affect age old mosques,” Ahmadi submitted.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday.
Case Title: IN RE THE WAQF (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2025| W.P.(C) No. 276/2025
