PIL In Telangana High Court Challenges Waqf Amendment Act, Calls It 'Systemic' Injury To Religious & Property Rights Of Muslims

A PIL has been filed in the Telangana High Court challenging the enforcement and operationalisation of the Waqf Amendment Act 2025 in the State, calling it a 'systemic' injury to religious, constitutional and property rights of the Muslim community.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara on Friday (April 25) adjourned the plea after noting the pendency of a similar matter before the Supreme Court. 

The petition has been filed by social welfare group 'Act Public Welfare Foundation', which is stated to have played an active role in highlighting the challenges faced by Waqf institutIons in Telangana, including encroachments and administrative dysfunction.

The plea states that the petitioner has submitted factual representations before competent authorities and the Joint Parliamentary Committee regarding the implicatIons of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. 

The plea states, "implementation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 by the Respondent State of Telangana is likely to cause extensive, immediate, and irreparable injury to the religious constitutional, and property rights of the Muslim community within the State. The nature of injury is not abstract or remote but is concrete, systemic, and likely to result in the erosion of institutional waqf protections, unlawful dispossession of endowment lands, and a serious chilling effect on the administration of religious affairs"

The first issue raised by the petitioner is in relation to section 3C of the Act which empowers the District Collector to evaluate title and re-classify land as government land. This the petitioners contended, violates the constitutional principles of judicial independence, natural justice, and religious freedom, particularly in a state like Telangana, where property disputes have historically been sources of institutionalised disadvantage.

Secondly, the petitioner organisation raised concerns with Section 4 which substitutes District Collector in place of Survey Commissioner. The plea contends that the District Collector, being an organisation of the state, may not be impartial.

Another concern is in relation to section 3b, which mandates all Waqf properties to be recognised only through online portals, which the petitioner contended was non-inclusive as a lot of Waqf lands in rural areas were maintained by individuals who did not have that understanding of technology to register a property online.

On Section 3c(4) which mandates the Waqf Board to amend its records in accordance with the findings of a government officer above the rank of collector the plea states,"This provision, if operationalised in Telangana, would lead to irreversible loss of waqf land by administrative fiat, without judicial adjudication. This directly violates the doctrine of separation of powers and fundamental principles of natural justice. In a State where over 57,000 acres of waqf land is under dispute or encroachment, empowering executive authorities to unilaterally nullify entries maintained by a statutory board undermines both statutory purpose and constitutional due process."

On Section 14 which mandates a non-muslim member to be included on the Waqf Board, the plea states constitutes an unconstitutional interference with the administrative autonomy of a religious denomination. 

On Section 61(1A), which imposes penal punishment on Mutawallis who fail to register waqf property online, the plea states that Mutawallis are elderly, often unpaid from the weaker section, with limited access to legal counsel or technological means. The provision lacks mens rea (criminal intent} as a requirement for prosecution, and hence, criminalises procedural failure, in violation of Article 21, which guarantees substantive fairness and personal liberty.

On Section 9, which mandates the inclusion of non-Muslims at the Central Waqf Council, the plea states that it also impacts State Waqf Boards through downstream implications in policy implementation.

Next, on Section 6 which allows for appeal against the order of the Waqf tribunal before High Court the plea states:

"While the right to appeal is ordinarily a safeguard, in the context of waqf litigation in Telangana, it will have the opposite effect of prolonging disputes and overburdening an already congested judicial system. According to data reviewed by the Petitioner and reflected in the internal note "Concerns Raised by Members," annexed as Annexure 8, Telangana already has thousands of waqf-related cases pending before Tribunals and Civil Courts. By removing finality from Tribunal decisions without instituting procedural safeguards or limiting grounds for appeal, the amendment creates a regime of perpetual uncertainty, frustrating the objective of expeditious dispute resolution under the Waqf Act."

And lastly, the petitioner organisation contended that the exclusion of the term ' Waqf by user' will have a detrimental effect particularly in Telangana where thousands of religious sites have been maintained by local communities for decades without formal registration or written deed. 

After hearing the petitioner to some extent, the Bench asked the petitioner to withdraw the matter, since it had already been taken cognizance of by the Supreme Court. However, as the petitioner's counsel argued that the PIL was in regard to the administrative implementation of the Act in the State, the matter was adjourned.

Case title: Act Pubiic Welfare Foundation v/s Union of India and Others