New Delhi: In a significant legal development, AIMIM Chief and Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi has approached the Supreme Court of India, filing a writ petition that challenges the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Owaisi contends that the new amendments infringe upon the fundamental rights of Muslims and strip them of their autonomy in managing their own religious endowments.
The petition, filed on April 4, argues that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 violates a host of constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A. Owaisi asserts that the Amendment diminishes the protections historically extended to waqf properties, while similar safeguards for other religious and charitable institutions—particularly Hindu, Jain, and Sikh—remain intact.
In the petition, Owaisi highlights that the Amendment Act marks a “departure” from India’s constitutional commitment to safeguarding minority rights. “This diminishing of the protection given to waqfs while retaining them for religious and charitable endowments of other religions constitutes hostile discrimination against Muslims,” the plea states.
The petition challenges several clauses of the 2025 Act, including Clauses 2A, 3(v), 3(vii), 3(ix), 4, 5(a)-(f), and 40, among others—covering a wide array of regulatory changes, eligibility criteria, and administrative controls. At the heart of the legal argument lies the assertion that the amendment expands state control over waqf administration at the cost of religious freedom, a right enshrined in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
One of the most contentious provisions under challenge is Clause 3(ix)(a) and 3(ix)(d), which mandate that only practising Muslims with at least five years of demonstrated religious practice can create a waqf. Owaisi’s petition argues that such a condition is not only arbitrary and vague but also contrary to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. Under the existing law, any Muslim who is legally competent and a resident within the jurisdiction of the 1937 Act is eligible to create a waqf.
“Requiring the waqif (donor) to demonstrate five years of Islamic practice before creating a waqf not only violates Article 14 but also Article 25, as it allows a third-party authority to assess a citizen’s faith,” the plea states. “This makes a mockery of constitutional guarantees around religious freedom.”
Additionally, the amendment reverses previous progressive steps in waqf legislation, particularly a 2013 amendment to the Waqf Act, 1995 that allowed non-Muslims to create valid waqfs. That inclusive provision—embodied in Section 104 of the 1995 Act—has now been omitted, a move Owaisi claims rolls back decades of legal evolution.
The petition also raises serious concerns about the derecognition of the principle of ‘waqf by user’—a well-established concept in Islamic law and Indian legal precedent. This principle allows a property to be recognised as waqf if it has been used for religious purposes for a significant period, even without a formal declaration.
Owaisi cites the landmark Supreme Court judgment in M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya case), which upheld the legitimacy of oral and informal dedications. He argues that invalidating this principle threatens the legal status of hundreds of historic waqf properties such as mosques and dargahs.
“This move not only undermines established legal precedent but also endangers ancient waqf properties that have existed for centuries,” the petition notes.
The Amendment Act also enables the nomination of non-Muslim members to the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. Owaisi contends that this dilutes the autonomy of the Muslim community in managing its own religious and charitable institutions.
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, the petition argues that while regulatory measures are permissible, the fundamental right to administer religious institutions must remain intact. “Allowing the government to nominate a majority of non-Muslim members amounts to legislative overreach and violates Article 26,” the plea asserts.
Sections 3D and 3E of the Amendment Act are also under the scanner. Section 3D prohibits the creation of waqf over properties classified as ancient, protected monuments. This provision, according to Owaisi, retrospectively invalidates waqf declarations, thereby jeopardising many mosques and dargahs located on historically significant sites.
Owaisi warns that such provisions could “vitiate the communal atmosphere” and create unnecessary conflict by inviting “mischievous claims” over existing Islamic places of worship. He further argues that this is contrary to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and the doctrine of non-retrogression upheld in the Ayodhya verdict.
Meanwhile, Section 3E is criticised for depriving Scheduled Tribe members of the right to dedicate property through waqf—a provision Owaisi calls “ex facie unconstitutional.”
With the matter now before the Supreme Court, the legal and political ramifications of this challenge are likely to resonate in the days ahead.
