Supreme Court to Hear Petitions Against Controversial Waqf Amendment Act

The Supreme Court will hear petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which critics claim discriminates against Muslims and undermines fundamental rights. Numerous politicians and organizations have petitioned against the amendments, citing unconstitutional elements and potential negative impacts on the management of Waqf properties.

The Supreme Court is poised to examine a series of petitions on April 16, questioning the legitimacy of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. A bench, including Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan, will preside over the hearings.

Accessible through the Supreme Court's website, the case is scheduled as item number 13. The Central Government has also proactively filed a caveat, indicating its interest in being heard regarding these challenges to the Act's constitutionality.

Opponents argue that the recent amendments are discriminatory against Muslims, infringing upon fundamental rights. Endorsed by President Droupadi Murmu, the Act was fiercely debated in Parliament. AIMIM's Asaduddin Owaisi, Congress figures, AAP, and various MPs alongside organizations like Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and others have joined in opposition, arguing that the changes are arbitrary and exclusionary.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has denounced the amendments as discriminatory, facilitating excessive government interference in religious endowments. High-profile politicians and entities, including Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, lodged complaints, contending that the amendments impose unprecedented restrictions unique to Muslim endowments.

Critics, such as Asaduddin Owaisi, believe the amended Act weakens statutory protections for Waqfs, benefiting other interests and reversing progress in Waqf management. Proponents like Amanatullah Khan contend that the Act jeopardizes religious autonomy and enables capricious government intervention.

Entities like Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulema assert the amendments alter Waqfs' religious essence and compromise democratic governance in their administration. Legal challenges also highlight risks posed to historical Waqfs by mandatory compliance measures, threatening their existence if reliant on oral dedication or lacking formal deeds. Critics perceive the Act as an unwarranted intrusion into Muslim religious matters, undermining the foundational intentions of Waqfs.

(With inputs from agencies.)