Supreme Court told Waqf Amendments discriminate against Muslims, undermine secularism

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 came under intense scrutiny in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with senior lawyers arguing that the law unfairly targets the Muslim community, imposes discriminatory conditions on Islamic endowments, and threatens the secular character of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard more than four hours of submissions from senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, CU Singh, and Huzefa Ahmadi.

Advertisement

The petitioners contended that the 2025 amendment violates Articles 15, 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution and pointed out that no similar provisions exist in the laws governing religious endowments of other faiths such as the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, or the Uttar Pradesh Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983.

Opening the arguments, Kapil Sibal argued that the amended Act empowers the Central Government to indirectly appoint non-Muslims to the Central Waqf Council, altering the representative character of institutions meant to regulate Muslim religious properties. While State Waqf Boards remain under state jurisdiction, Sibal noted that the Council could now have a non-Muslim majority.

“There would be only eight Muslim members, while the rest may be non-Muslims nominated by the government. Hindu, Sikh, and Christian endowments are regulated solely by members of their own faith. Why this differential treatment?” Sibal asked.

He further criticized the amendment’s inquiry mechanism, highlighting that government officers are now empowered to determine Waqf status—acting as judge in their own cause. A waqif, he pointed out, can only challenge the officer’s decision after the same proceedings have concluded.

Chief Justice Gavai observed that the amended law now imposes harsher consequences for failing to register Waqf properties.

“Earlier, only the mutawalli was penalized for non-registration. Now, the entire Waqf property is affected. This is a drastic change,” he noted.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi denounced the removal of the concept of “waqf by user” as a regressive step, arguing that it threatens centuries-old mosques, graveyards, and Islamic charitable institutions that were never formally documented but are historically and religiously acknowledged.

“By sleight of hand, such waqfs now vanish,” Ahmadi warned, describing the move as both retrospective and disruptive to the community’s heritage.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi questioned why Muslims alone are required to produce proof of religious use over five or ten years when making an endowment—an obligation not placed on other faiths.

“Endowments exist in every religion. Why this selective religious regulation? This contravenes Article 15,” Singhvi said.

Rajeev Dhavan echoed these concerns, asserting that the law violates Articles 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution. “This destroys the secular edifice Your Lordships have built over decades. Secularism is not a slogan—it is a constitutional guarantee,” Dhavan said.

Appearing for the Union Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the court to limit the interim hearing to three issues already flagged by the bench: the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards and Councils, the removal of ‘waqf by user’, and the identification and de-notification of government land as waqf.

“Petitioners’ written submissions go far beyond this. My affidavit responds only to these three issues. Let us stay within that scope,” Mehta urged.

The petitioners objected to this narrowing of the debate. Sibal insisted that the entire law merits judicial scrutiny and said the court “cannot slice the Constitution in bits.”

The petitions have been filed by Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Maulana Arshad Madani (Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind), the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulama, the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), and the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR). They argue that the amendments amount to targeted interference in Muslim religious affairs and violate constitutional guarantees.

Six BJP-ruled states—Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam—have filed intervention applications supporting the law, asserting that the amendments are necessary to curb fraudulent encroachments on public and private lands wrongly claimed as waqf.

Defending the amendment, the Centre has argued that the 2013 amendments to the Waqf Act led to a multifold increase in recorded waqf land and that the 2025 amendment introduces transparent and formal mechanisms to govern waqf dedications.

The hearing will continue on Wednesday, May 22, when the Centre and states supporting the law are expected to present their arguments against any interim relief.