The Supreme Court is set to hear challenges against the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, a contentious law passed by Parliament. A group of petitions, including one by Congress MP Mohammed Jawed and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, argue that the law violates constitutional provisions. The petitions will be heard on Monday, nearly a month after the law’s passage. Ahead of the hearing, the government assured the court that it would not denotify waqf properties or make appointments to the Central Waqf Council until May 5, 2025.
The Centre’s legal team, led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the law, arguing that it was passed after “due deliberations” in Parliament. The government opposed any immediate intervention, particularly regarding provisions that would denotify waqf properties and allow non-Muslims to be included in the Central Waqf Council. Tushar Mehta assured the court that waqf properties already registered would remain untouched until the next hearing.
In its affidavit submitted on April 25, the Centre argued that interfering with the Waqf Act would undermine the legislative process. The government also addressed the “waqf by user” provision, which pertains to properties used as religious or charitable endowments over a long period, even without a formal declaration of waqf. The Centre emphasized that this provision was essential for preserving religious and charitable assets and should not be changed by judicial action.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, which received the President’s assent on April 5, 2025, has sparked significant opposition. While the law garnered substantial support in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, political parties like the DMK, YSRCP, and AIMIM, as well as various civil society groups and Muslim organizations, have challenged its validity. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) also raised concerns over the government’s claim that the number of Waqf properties had dramatically increased since a previous amendment in 2013. As the Supreme Court takes up the case, questions about the law’s impact on religious freedom and constitutional rights remain unresolved.
