Petitioners Tell SC Waqf Act 2025 is a ‘Gradual Takeover’ of Waqf Properties, Challenge Its Presumed Constitutionality

The recently amended Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has come under heavy legal challenge, with several petitioners arguing before the Supreme Court that it amounts to a slow and systematic seizure of Muslim community properties. They claim that the law violates religious freedoms, property rights, and constitutional protections afforded to religious minorities in India.

Core Issues Raised by Petitioners

Petitioners have identified multiple provisions in the amended Act that they argue are problematic and unconstitutional:

• Restrictive Definition of Waqf: One of the major changes introduced by the Act is the new requirement that only individuals who have practiced Islam for at least five years can create a Waqf. Petitioners argue this clause is exclusionary, discriminates within the Muslim community, and imposes arbitrary restrictions on religious dedication.
• Abolition of ‘Waqf by User’: The amended law removes recognition of the long-established doctrine of ‘Waqf by user,’ under which properties used for religious or charitable Islamic purposes, even without documentation, were deemed Waqf. Petitioners argue that this could lead to the loss of many historic religious properties such as graveyards, mosques, and shrines that do not have written records but have been in religious use for generations.
• Government Control Over Disputed Properties: A controversial provision allows district collectors to declare disputed Waqf properties as government land until the courts settle the matter. Critics say this gives the executive arbitrary power and bypasses the rights of Muslim communities to manage their own religious and charitable assets.
• Mandatory Inclusion of Non-Muslims on Waqf Boards: The Act introduces non-Muslim representation in Waqf Boards at the state and national levels. Petitioners argue this infringes on the community’s right to manage its own religious institutions, as protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.

Centre’s Justification

The Central Government has defended the constitutionality of the amendments. It claims the Act promotes transparency and proper administration of Waqf assets. According to the government, these reforms do not violate fundamental rights but rather enhance oversight to prevent misuse and mismanagement of Waqf properties. The government also insists the core right to religious endowment remains intact.

It has requested the Supreme Court to restrict the scope of the hearing to just three specific issues for which it has already filed affidavits. However, this has been opposed by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who argue that a piecemeal approach undermines the broader constitutional questions involved.

Supreme Court’s Position

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while hearing the case, emphasized that judicial intervention in legislative matters is only warranted when there is a “very strong case.” He reaffirmed the legal principle that laws passed by Parliament are presumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise. The court has not yet granted interim relief to the petitioners but is actively hearing the matter.

Broader Implications

This legal challenge touches on sensitive and far-reaching issues related to minority rights, religious freedom, and the autonomy of religious institutions. Many Muslim organizations and scholars have expressed concern that the law centralizes too much control over Waqf assets in the hands of the government, potentially eroding centuries-old religious traditions.

As the case progresses, the Supreme Court’s ruling will likely set a critical precedent for how India balances legislative reforms with constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms and minority rights.