Constitutionality of Waqf Amendment Challenged

Supreme Court Petitions Argue New Law Violates Religious Freedom, Property Rights

April 8, 2025

Bara Imambara, Lucknow, a Waqf property

Multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, have been filed before the Supreme Court. The petitioners, including the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, argue the Act infringes upon religious freedom and property rights.

DMK Member of Parliament A. Raja filed a writ petition on April 7, represented by senior advocate and DMK MP P. Wilson, according to The New Indian Express. This came two days after a legal challenge from the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR),which filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on April 5, as reported by LiveLaw.

The DMK had earlier voiced strong opposition when the bill passed the Lok Sabha on April 3, with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin declaring during state Assembly proceedings that the party would legally challenge the amendment in the apex court. On March 27, the Tamil Nadu government had adopted a resolution, demanding the Union government withdraw the contentious bill entirely.

APCR asserts the amended Act directly violates Articles 14, 25, 26 and 300A of the Indian Constitution, terming it an “alarming interference” into the religious practices of the Muslim community and stating it undermines the foundational principles of waqf institutions deeply rooted in Islamic tradition since the Prophet Mohammad’s era.

Article 14 ensures equality before the law and prohibits discrimination by mandating equal protection of laws to all individuals within India’s territory. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.

Article 26 protects the right of religious denominations to manage their religious affairs, establish institutions for religious and charitable purposes, and administer properties in accordance with law. Article 300A safeguards an individual’s right to property, stating that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law.

APCR argues that the amendment selectively imposes restrictions exclusively targeting Muslim religious institutions while similar constraints are not applied to non-Muslim religious bodies. It points out that states, including Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, only permit Hindus to manage Hindu endowment institutions.

The APCR petition opposes the amendment’s omission of Section 3(r), concerning the waqf-by-user doctrine, which recognises properties as waqf based on their long-standing use for religious or charitable purposes, even without formal dedication. The group states that removing this provision intentionally weakens legal recognition granted to waqf properties.

The legislation mandates alterations to the administrative structure of Waqf Boards, including the appointment of two non-Muslim members to both the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. While the Union government says that these members’ roles will be limited to administrative functions and will not interfere with religious activities, many argue that this provision infringes upon the constitutional right of Muslims to manage their religious affairs independently.

The law also grants the government greater authority to validate disputed Waqf properties, a move the government claims will enhance transparency and reduce corruption. However, Muslim organisations and opposition parties contend that this could lead to the confiscation of religious properties, particularly those without formal documentation, and weaken the autonomy of Waqf Boards.

Furthermore, the requirement for Waqf Boards to seek approval from district-level officers to confirm property ownership has been criticised as a mechanism that could strip Muslims of their land and undermine the boards’ authority.