Congress, AIMIM leaders move SC against Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025

Jawed’s plea also pointed out that the bill omits the concept of "Waqf-by-user," a doctrine affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case.

Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi on Friday challenged the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the Supreme Court, arguing that it violates constitutional provisions.

Jawed’s plea alleged that the bill imposes "arbitrary restrictions" on Waqf properties and their management, undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community. The petition, filed through advocate Anas Tanwir, claimed that the proposed law discriminates against the Muslim community by "imposing restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments."

The bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha with 128 members voting in favor and 95 opposing it. It was earlier passed in the Lok Sabha on April 3, with 288 members supporting it and 232 voting against it.

Jawed, a Lok Sabha MP from Kishanganj in Bihar and a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the bill, alleged in his plea that the bill "introduces restrictions on the creation of Waqfs based on the duration of one’s religious practice." He argued, "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."

In his separate plea, Owaisi said the bill removes various protections that were previously accorded to Waqfs as well as to Hindu, Jain, and Sikh religious and charitable endowments. His petition, filed through advocate Lzafeer Ahmad, argued, "This diminishing of the protection given to Waqfs while retaining them for religious and charitable endowments of other religions constitutes hostile discrimination against Muslims and is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion."

The petition also claimed that the amendments "irreversibly dilute" the statutory protections afforded to Waqfs while giving undue advantage to other stakeholders, undermining years of progress and setting back Waqf management by decades.

Owaisi further argued that "appointing non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards disturbs this delicate constitutional balance and tilts it to the detriment of the right of Muslims as a religious group to remain in control of their Waqf properties."

Jawed’s plea raised concerns that the bill discriminates against individuals who have recently converted to Islam and wish to dedicate property for religious or charitable purposes, violating Article 15 of the Constitution. It also argued that including non-Muslims in the administrative composition of the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council constitutes "unwarranted interference" in religious governance. The plea pointed out that Hindu religious endowments remain exclusively managed by Hindus under various state laws.

"This selective intervention, without imposing similar conditions on other religious institutions, is an arbitrary classification and violates Articles 14 and 15," the plea stated.

Another major concern highlighted in the plea was that the bill shifts key administrative functions, such as the power to determine the nature of Waqf properties, from the Waqf Board to the district collector. "This transfer of control from religious institutions to government officials dilutes the autonomy of Waqf management and contravenes Article 26(d)," it stated.

Additionally, the plea argued that the bill modifies the process of dispute resolution by altering the composition and powers of the Waqf tribunals. "It reduces representation of individuals with expertise in Islamic law, influencing the adjudication of Waqf-related disputes," it said. The petition claimed that these changes would discourage legal recourse through specialized tribunals, in contrast to the robust protections provided to other religious institutions under their respective endowment laws.

The plea also contended that the amendments undermine property rights protected under Article 300A. By expanding state control over Waqf assets, it claimed, the bill limits the ability of individuals to dedicate property for religious purposes.

Furthermore, the bill subjects Waqf properties to heightened scrutiny, allegedly contradicting a 1954 Supreme Court ruling that held that transferring control of religious property to secular authorities constitutes an infringement of religious and property rights.

Jawed’s plea also pointed out that the bill omits the concept of "Waqf-by-user," a doctrine affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case. The doctrine states that a property can attain Waqf status through long-standing religious use. "By removing this provision, the bill disregards established legal principles and limits the ability of the Waqf Tribunal to recognize properties as Waqf based on historical usage, violating Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs," the plea said.