Supreme Court Order on Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 Challenges: A Legal Analysis

Introduction

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The petitions, including Writ Petition (Civil) No. 269/2025 filed by Asaduddin Owaisi, were heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan. The court issued an interim order outlining procedural steps for the ongoing legal battle, which has drawn significant attention due to the Act’s implications for waqf property management and religious autonomy. This article provides a detailed analysis of the court’s order, the context of the case, the key issues raised, and the references used in the proceedings.

Download Order

Background of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, amends the Waqf Act, 1995, and renames it the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act, 1995 (UWMEED Act). Introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 8, 2024, and passed by Parliament on April 4, 2025, the Act received presidential assent on April 5, 2025, and came into force on April 8, 2025. The amendments aim to enhance transparency and accountability in waqf property management but have sparked controversy for allegedly infringing on the Muslim community’s religious and property rights.

Key provisions of the Act include:

• Inclusion of Non-Muslims: Mandating non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards, removing the requirement for Muslim-majority membership.
• Elimination of Waqf by User: Removing the concept of “waqf by user,” which recognizes properties as waqf based on long-term religious or charitable use, as upheld in the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid judgment.
• Increased Government Control: Empowering Collectors to survey waqf properties and allowing government property identified as waqf to cease being waqf.
• Five-Year Islam Practice Requirement: Restricting waqf creation to individuals practicing Islam for at least five years.
• Appeal to High Courts: Revoking the finality of Waqf Tribunal decisions, allowing appeals to High Courts within 90 days.
• Invalidation of Waqf on ASI Monuments: Declaring waqf properties within Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)-protected monuments as void.

These changes prompted over 70 petitions from politicians, religious organizations, and civil society groups, alleging violations of constitutional rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), 29 (minority rights), and 300A (property rights).

The Supreme Court’s Order: Key Points

The Supreme Court’s order on April 17, 2025, addressed procedural aspects of the case, setting the stage for a preliminary hearing. The key points of the order are as follows:

1. Centre’s Assurances

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, made significant statements to address immediate concerns:

• No Appointments to Waqf Bodies: Until the next hearing, no appointments will be made to the Central Waqf Council or State Waqf Boards under Sections 9 and 14 of the 1995 Waqf Act, as amended. Any appointments made by state governments or the National Capital Territory of Delhi will be declared void.
• Protection of Waqf Properties: No waqf properties, including those designated by user or registered, will be de-notified, nor will their character or status be altered until the next hearing.
• Non-Muslim Appointments Halted: The Centre assured that non-Muslims would not be appointed to waqf administrative bodies, addressing a major contention regarding religious autonomy.

These assurances were recorded by the court, providing interim relief to petitioners who feared immediate implementation of the Act’s contentious provisions.

2. Procedural Directives

The court outlined the following procedural steps:

• Centre’s Response: The Union of India, State Governments, and Waqf Boards were directed to file a preliminary reply/response within seven days from April 17, 2025.
• Petitioners’ Rejoinder: Petitioners may file rejoinder affidavits within five days of receiving the respondents’ reply.
• Lead Cases Identified: Five writ petitions were designated as lead cases to streamline proceedings:
  • W.P. (C) No. 276/2025: Arshad Madani v. Union of India
  • W.P. (C) No. 314/2025: Muhammad Jameel Merchant v. Union of India
  • W.P. (C) No. 284/2025: Mohammed Fazlurrahim & Anr. v. Union of India
  • W.P. (C) No. 331/2025: Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Union of India
  • W.P. (C) No. 269/2025: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India
• Other Petitions as Interventions: All other writ petitions challenging the 2025 Act were treated as intervention or impleadment applications in the lead cases.
• Separate Listing for 1995 Act Challenges: Petitions challenging the original Waqf Act, 1995, and its 2013 amendments, such as W.P. (C) No. 353/2025 (Hari Shankar Jain and Anr. v. Union of India), were to be listed separately.
• Nodal Counsel Appointed: To facilitate service and document filing, nodal counsel were appointed:
  • Petitioners: Mr. Ejaz Maqbool ([email protected])
  • Applicants: Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain ([email protected])
  • Respondents: Mr. Kanu Agarwal ([email protected])

3. Next Hearing

The court scheduled a preliminary hearing for May 5, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., clarifying that interim orders, if required, would be passed at that time. The court emphasized that the hearing would focus on preliminary issues, indicating a cautious approach to the complex constitutional questions raised.

Key Issues Raised by Petitioners

The petitions collectively argue that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, undermines the Muslim community’s religious and cultural autonomy. The main contentions include:

1. Violation of Religious Autonomy (Article 26):
   • The inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf administrative bodies is seen as an interference with the Muslim community’s right to manage its religious institutions, unlike Hindu or Sikh endowments, which remain community-specific.
   • The removal of elected Waqf Boards and their replacement with government-appointed bodies, including non-Muslims and officials lacking Islamic jurisprudence expertise, is contested as a violation of Article 26.
2. Elimination of Waqf by User:
   • The deletion of “waqf by user” is argued to jeopardize centuries-old waqf properties, many of which lack formal deeds and rely on historical usage. Petitioners cite the Supreme Court’s recognition of this concept in the 2019 Ramjanmabhoomi judgment, arguing that its removal violates the principle of “once a waqf, always a waqf.”
3. Discriminatory Restrictions:
   • The five-year Islam practice requirement for creating waqf is deemed arbitrary and exclusionary, potentially barring recent converts and others from contributing to waqf, violating Articles 14 and 15.
   • The Act’s differential treatment of Muslim endowments compared to Hindu and Sikh trusts, which enjoy greater autonomy, is alleged to violate Article 14 (equality).
4. Property Rights (Article 300A):
   • Enhanced state control over waqf properties, including the power to de-notify waqf status, is seen as an infringement of property rights. The retroactive application of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing encroachers to claim adverse possession, is also challenged.
5. Invalidation of Waqf on ASI Monuments:
   • Section 3D, which voids waqf properties within ASI-protected monuments, is contested as targeting Muslim religious sites disproportionately and contradicting the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
6. Procedural Irregularities:
   • Petitioners allege that the Act was passed with inadequate consultation, ignoring objections raised during Joint Parliamentary Committee hearings. Last-minute additions, such as Sections 3D and 3E, are criticized as undermining democratic processes.

Important References Used in the Case

The Supreme Court’s order does not explicitly cite judicial precedents or statutory provisions, as it is a procedural order. However, based on the petitions and the context provided by web sources, the following references are central to the case:

1. Constitutional Provisions:
   • Article 13: Provides that laws contravening fundamental rights are void, forming the basis for challenging the Act’s constitutionality.
   • Article 14: Right to equality, cited to argue that the Act discriminates against Muslims by imposing restrictions not applied to other religious endowments.
   • Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, invoked to challenge the five-year Islam practice requirement and non-Muslim inclusion.
   • Article 25: Freedom to practice religion, cited to argue that the Act restricts religious practices related to waqf creation and management.
   • Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs, central to objections against non-Muslim inclusion and government control over waqf bodies.
   • Article 29: Minority rights, invoked to protect the Muslim community’s cultural and religious autonomy.
   • Article 300A: Right to property, cited to challenge state control and de-notification of waqf properties.
2. Judicial Precedents:
   • Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Judgment (2019): The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench recognized “waqf by user” as a valid principle in Indian waqf jurisprudence. Petitioners argue that the Act’s removal of this concept contradicts this precedent.
   • General Principle of “Once a Waqf, Always a Waqf”: Cited by petitioners to argue that the Act’s provisions allowing de-notification of waqf properties violate established Muslim jurisprudence and prior judicial pronouncements.
3. Statutory Provisions:
   • Waqf Act, 1995: The principal legislation governing waqf properties, amended by the 2025 Act. Sections 9 (Central Waqf Council) and 14 (State Waqf Boards) are under scrutiny for non-Muslim inclusion.
   • Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025: Specific provisions challenged include:
     • Section 3D: Invalidating waqf on ASI-protected monuments.
     • Section 3E: Barring waqf creation on Scheduled Tribe properties.
     • Omission of Section 104: Removing “waqf by user” recognition.
     • Omission of Section 107: Applying the Limitation Act, 1963, to waqf disputes.
   • Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958: Section 6 is cited to argue that Section 3D of the 2025 Act contradicts protections for religious sites.
4. Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) Report:
   • The JPC’s final report, submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker, included 25 recommendations incorporated into the 2025 Act. Petitioners argue that community objections during JPC hearings were ignored.

Significance of the Order

The Supreme Court’s order is a preliminary step in a high-stakes constitutional challenge. By securing assurances against immediate appointments and de-notifications, the court has provided temporary relief to petitioners while allowing the Centre to present its case. The designation of lead cases and nodal counsel streamlines the handling of over 70 petitions, ensuring an organized judicial process.

The court’s cautious approach—deferring substantive interim orders until May 5, 2025—reflects the complexity of balancing religious autonomy, property rights, and administrative reforms. The order also separates challenges to the 1995 Act from those targeting the 2025 amendments, preventing conflation of distinct legal issues.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s April 17, 2025, order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, sets the stage for a critical examination of the Act’s constitutionality. The assurances against non-Muslim appointments and waqf de-notifications address immediate concerns, while the procedural directives ensure a structured hearing process. The case raises profound questions about religious autonomy, equality, and state control over religious endowments, with references to constitutional provisions, judicial precedents like the Ramjanmabhoomi judgment, and statutory laws shaping the debate. As the court prepares for the May 5, 2025, hearing, the outcome will significantly impact waqf governance and minority rights in India.

References

• Constitution of India, Articles 13, 14, 15, 25, 26, 29, 300A.
• Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Judgment, Supreme Court of India (2019).
• Waqf Act, 1995, Sections 9, 14, 104, 107.
• Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, Sections 3D, 3E.
• Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Section 6.
• Joint Parliamentary Committee Report on Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024.