Barely a day after the controversial the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 was passed by the Lok Sabha followed by the Rajya Sabha, a Congress leader, Mohammad Jawed, and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi have moved the Supreme Court challenging it contending that it was discriminatory towards the Muslim community and violates their fundamental rights as it imposes restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments.

The Bill passed in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and now awaits President Droupadi Murmu’s assent to become a law.

Advertisement

Javed, a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, in his plea, said that the proposed legislation violates Article 14 (right to equality before law), Article 25 (freedom to practice religion), Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), Article 29 (minority rights) and Article 300A (right to property) of the Constitution.

“The Act imposes arbitrary restrictions on Waqf properties and their management, thereby undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community” and introduces restrictions on the creation of Waqf based on the duration of one’s religious practice, says the petition by the Congress leader Mohammad Jawed.

“Such a limitation is unfounded in Islamic law, custom or precedent and infringes upon the fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Article 25. Additionally, the restriction discriminates against individuals who have recently converted to Islam and wish to dedicate property for religious or charitable purposes, thereby violating Article 15 of the Constitution,” states the petition.

The petitioner further says, “The Bill discriminates against the Muslim community by imposing restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments. For instance, while Hindu and Sikh religious trusts continue to enjoy a degree of self-regulation, the amendments to the Wakf Act, 1995, disproportionately increases state intervention in Waqf affairs. Such differential treatment amounts to a violation of Article 14 in addition to introduction of arbitrary classifications that lack a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved, making it impermissible under the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness.”

The petition has termed as “unwarranted interference” the amendment to the composition of the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council that mandates the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf administrative bodies. On the other hand, the Hindu religious endowments are exclusively managed by Hindus under various state enactments. “This selective intervention, without imposing similar conditions on other religious institutions, is an arbitrary classification and violates Articles 14 and 15,” says the petition challenging the legality of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

The enhanced role of state authorities in the Waqf administration impinges on the right of the Muslim community to manage its institutions, says the petition further pointing out that the amendment to the Waqf law shifts key administrative functions, such as the power to determine the nature of Waqf properties, from the Waqf Board to the district collector, and “this transfer of control from religious institutions to government officials dilutes the autonomy of Waqf management and contravenes Article 26(d).”

Besides the dilution of autonomy of the Waqf management, the petition says that the Bill modifies the process of dispute resolution by altering the composition and powers of Waqf Tribunals. “It reduces representation of individuals with expertise in Islamic law, influencing the adjudication of Waqf-related disputes.”

This change disproportionately affects willingness to resort to legal recourse through specialised tribunals, in contrast to the robust protections provided to other religious institutions under their respective endowment law, states the petition.