Introduction
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025—a legislation introduced with the stated objective of reforming and enhancing the governance of waqf properties—has stirred nationwide controversy. On April 8, 2025, the All India Association of Jurists moved the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The petition, among others, contends that the amendments infringe upon fundamental rights, particularly freedom of religion and autonomy of religious institutions as guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
What Is Waqf and Why the Amendment?
The Waqf Act, 1995 governs the administration of Muslim charitable endowments (waqf properties) across India. These properties are donated permanently for religious, educational, or charitable purposes and are managed by Waqf Boards.
Over time, mismanagement, encroachments, and allegations of corruption prompted calls for reform. In response, the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 was introduced in Parliament, culminating in the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which received presidential assent on April 5, 2025.
However, the Act has faced sharp criticism from Muslim organizations, jurists, and opposition parties, primarily for altering the composition of Waqf Boards, increasing government oversight, and diluting the autonomy of the waqf administration.
Grounds of Challenge Before the Supreme Court
The petition filed by the All India Association of Jurists primarily raises the following constitutional objections:
1. Violation of Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution
- Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
- Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, including:
- Establishing and maintaining institutions,
- Managing property dedicated for religious or charitable purposes.
Petitioners’ Argument:
The amendments violate these rights by:
- Appointing non-Muslim members to Waqf Boards,
- Enhancing state control over religious endowments,
- Curtailing the community's autonomy in managing their religious institutions.
These changes, they argue, amount to state interference in religious affairs, which is prohibited under Article 26(b).
2. Lack of Adequate Consultation and Due Process
The petition alleges that the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) failed to consult key stakeholders, including religious bodies and community representatives, thereby violating the principles of participatory democracy and legislative due process.
3. Arbitrariness and Discrimination (Article 14)
- The Act is alleged to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, thus violating Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary state action.
- The inclusion of non-Muslim members in a religious body that exclusively deals with Islamic endowments is claimed to be unreasonable classification with no rational nexus to the objective of better governance.
4. Retrospective Application and Encroachment Concerns
The amendment allegedly allows retrospective validation of certain government actions, including acquisition and reclassification of waqf lands, which could:
- Legalize past encroachments or takeovers,
- Jeopardize religious and charitable purposes for which such properties were originally dedicated.
Wider Reactions and Implications
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has strongly opposed the legislation, terming it communal and coercive. Large-scale protests have been organized nationwide.
- Prominent leaders, such as Asaduddin Owaisi, have also moved the Supreme Court against the Act, calling it a direct attack on religious freedoms.
- The controversy is reminiscent of other constitutional challenges where the state’s interest in reform must be balanced against the community's right to autonomy in religious affairs.
Legal Precedents in Focus
The Supreme Court has, in the past, drawn a fine line between state regulation and religious autonomy, including:
- Shirur Mutt Case (1954) – The Court held that religious denominations have the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion under Article 26(b).
- Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) – The state can regulate secular aspects of religion but not interfere in essential religious practices.
These cases will likely guide the Court’s examination of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Conclusion: What Lies Ahead?
The challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 sets the stage for a crucial judicial review that may redefine the contours of state control versus religious freedom in India. If the Supreme Court finds merit in the petitioners' arguments, the Act or parts of it may be struck down or read down to preserve the constitutional balance.
At its core, this case underscores the enduring tension between reform-driven governance and protection of minority rights—a tension that lies at the heart of Indian constitutionalism.
