Owaisi Challenges Waqf Amendment Bill In Supreme Court; Says It Strips Muslims Of Right To Manage Their Own Religious Affairs

Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament representing the Hyderabad constituency in Lok Sabha, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 on the grounds that the Amendment takes way the protection accorded to the waqf under Article 26 of the Constitution while retaining such protection for religious and charitable endowments of other religions.It is, therefore, in violation of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution of India and is manifestly arbitrary, the petition notes."The Amendment Act, 2025 marks a departure from this consistent progression towards affording greater protections to the rights of the Muslim community under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and charts a new course of diluting the protections to waqfs undermining the rights of the minority communities in its properties and expanding the interference of the State over waqf administration," the petition. It is stated in the petition that the Amendment also takes away from waqfs various protections which were accorded to waqfs and Hindu, Jain, and Sikh religious and charitable endowments alike."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."Owaisi has specifically challenged the constitutional validity of clauses 2A, 3(v), 3(vii), 3(ix), 4, 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(f), 6(a), 6(c), 6(d), 7(a)(ii), 7(a)(iii), 7(a)(iv), 7(b), 8(ii), 8(iii), 8(iv), 9, 11, 12(i), 14, 15, 16, 17(a), 17(b), 18, 19, 20, 21(b), 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28(a), 28(b), 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39(a), 40, 40A, 41, 42, 43(a), 43(b), and 44 of the 2025 Act. Who can create waqf Clauses 3(ix)(a) and 3(ix)(d) of the Bill on who can create waqf have been challenged as being manifestly arbitrary, vague, and unconstitutional restrictions. As per this clause, a person has to be a practising Muslim for at least 5 years to create a Waqf. It is argued that the restriction on who can create a waqf is in direct conflict with Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which does not prescribe any other condition except that a person must be Muslim, competent to contract within the meaning of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and a resident of the territories to which he 1937 Act extends."Requiring the waqif to show or demonstrate that they have practised Islam for at least five years undermines constitutional protections under Articles 14, 15, and 300A of the Constitution, as it discriminates against recent converts by selectively preventing them from seeking religious merit immediately upon conversion by disposing of their property in a manner they deem fit.Further, the impugned amendment imposes an additional requirement of the waqif 'demonstrating' that he has been practising Islam for at least five years, placing a third-party authority in a position to judge the practice and adherence of a citizen's faith, which makes a mockery of Article 25."It has also been stated that Islamic law has historically permitted even non-Muslims to dedicate property as waqf. This provision was carried forward in the Waqf Act, 1995, as Section 104, and in 2013, an amendment was introduced in the 1995 Act by which the words “by a person professing Islam” were replaced with the words “by any person” in the definition of waqf, permitting non-Muslims to create valid waqfs, beyond what had already been allowed by virtue of Section 104. "Therefore, Clauses 3(ix)(a) and 3(ix)(d) of the Amendment Act, especially when read in conjunction with Clause 40 of the said Act, by which Section 104 of the 1995 Act has been omitted, is not only unconstitutional but also effectively reverses years of progress and evolution of the waqf legislation."The petition also challenges this amendment as it requires demonstrating that there is no 'contrivance' involved in the dedication of the property. "This also gives another vague and entirely subjective ground for the authority to invalidate a dedication of property on a ground that does not exist in any other law relating to any other endowments of any other religion. This is again violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution."Derocognition of waqf by user The petition states that the principle of waqf by user is a well-established rule of evidence under Islamic jurisprudence, which has also been upheld by the Supreme Court. The judgment in M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya case verdict) has been referred to note that the Supreme Court affirmed that Muslim law recognises oral dedication and that the existence of a waqf can be legally recognised in situations where property has been the subject of public religious use since time immemorial, even in the absence of an express...

Owaisi Challenges Waqf Amendment Bill In Supreme Court; Says It Strips Muslims Of Right To Manage Their Own Religious Affairs

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Owaisi also said that the provision invalidating waqfs over ancient protected monuments can create conflicts.

Tags