The Supreme Court commenced hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The court did not pass any interim order.

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal began the arguments for the petitioners. He informed a Bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra that the new law empowers the Centre to gradually take over waqf properties. He contended this intrudes on the rights of Muslims to manage their religious affairs.

Sibal described the 2025 amendments as a significant deviation from the legal structure that has evolved over generations to safeguard waqf properties. Senior counsels Rajeev Dhavan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Huzefa Ahmadi also appeared for the petitioners.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, requested the court to first decide three issues: whether courts have the power to denotify waqf-declared properties, and the legality of waqf-by-user and waqf-by-deed. He submitted that the court could address broader constitutional questions at a later stage. The petitioners objected, arguing that the case raised fundamental constitutional issues that could not be adjudicated in fragments.

The Centre announced the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, following President Droupadi Murmu’s assent. Parliament passed the law with 288 members voting in favour in the Lok Sabha and 128 in the Rajya Sabha. The opposition opposed it, with 232 and 95 votes against in the respective Houses.

Sibal stated that under the amended Act, members of the waqf board are now nominated rather than elected. He pointed out that seven of the eleven members can be non-Muslims and argued that this enables “creeping acquisition” of waqf property by the government.

He argued that the law requires a person to prove they are a practising Muslim to create a waqf, effectively disqualifying a large number of tribal and other marginalised Muslims. He added that a majority of members on the Central Waqf Council are currently non-Muslims. He submitted that this violates Muslims’ rights under Articles 25 and 26 to administer their religious institutions.

Sibal contended that once a waqf property is declared a protected monument, it loses its religious character. He said this results in the loss of the right to worship and violates Articles 14, 25, and 26. He asserted that state control over such properties offends the dignity and equality of religious expression.

He noted that the requirement to register waqf-by-user properties applied only after the 1923 Act. Chief Justice Chandrachud acknowledged that registration provisions existed in earlier laws but were not mandatory except in specific cases like the removal of a mutawalli (caretaker).

Sibal argued that waqf is a permanent charitable endowment to God and that religion and charity protect such property. He said the 2025 law breaks from this foundational legal tradition. He stated that if any government department disputes the waqf nature of a property, it loses its waqf status, and requiring individuals to prove their religion violates Article 25.

He stated that the Act lacks due process. He noted that a government officer, who also acts as the adjudicator, conducts an inquiry to determine if a property is waqf. Only after this can an appeal be made to the Waqf Tribunal.

He warned that the law could nullify waqf status even for properties endowed centuries ago. He argued that in many waqf-by-user cases, the identity of the waqif is unknown, making it impossible to meet the burden of proof and failure to do so could result in imprisonment and penalties.

He also challenged the invocation of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, to invalidate waqf properties. He stated that this contravenes secularism, as that Act was not meant to target minority-held religious properties.

Sibal criticised the passage of the Bill in Parliament. He claimed that key provisions like Sections 3(d) and 3(e) were not scrutinised by the Joint Parliamentary Committee and were passed without adequate debate.

He said the Act allows a District Collector to determine whether a property is waqf. If a dispute arises or the government claims the land, it cannot be registered as waqf. The matter can go to court, but only within six months after which no legal claim is permitted. He said this provision allows the government to dispossess waqf boards of evacuee properties.

Sibal argued that the amendment removes the requirement for waqf board members to be Muslim. He questioned why religious boards of Hindus and Sikhs are exclusively administered by members of their own faith, whereas waqf boards now allow non-Muslims.

Rajeev Dhavan asserted that the new legislation contradicts a series of Supreme Court rulings, including T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, which affirmed the right of minorities to administer religious institutions. He said this right cannot be diluted or removed.

Dhavan explained that many religious or charitable endowments qualify as waqf. He said removing their waqf status disrupts religious practices and undermines secular principles.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi listed five objections to the Act. He said it creates fear, brings waqifs under state control, and violates Article 15 by requiring a person to prove their religion. He said most waqf-by-user properties are unregistered, and if the District Collector declares a property non-waqf, the law provides no remedy.

Singhvi rejected the Centre’s claim of a 116% rise in waqf properties between 2013 and 2024. He said the increase resulted from the digitisation of records since 2013, not from new waqf creations. He noted that India has 8.72 lakh waqf properties, of which over 4 lakh are waqf-by-user.

He cited the Joint Parliamentary Committee’s findings that only five states and four Union Territories had completed the waqf survey questionnaires.

Huzefa Ahmadi challenged a provision that requires a person to prove they have been Muslim for five years before creating a waqf. He asked how a person’s religion can be measured or tested.

He cited Section 3D of the amended Act, which states that if a waqf property is declared a protected monument under existing heritage laws, its waqf status stands annulled. He cautioned that this could lead to mass denotification of mosques if they are deemed ancient under the 1904 or 1958 laws.

The Kerala government decided to challenge the new law. Law Minister P. Rajeeve announced that state legal officers would file a petition in the Supreme Court. He noted that while BJP-led states supported the law, Kerala took time to reach this decision.

The Union government argued that existing waqf laws were being misused. It said this had led to encroachments and a 116% increase in waqf land from 2013 to 2024. The government said waqf land had grown by 20.9 lakh acres in 11 years, with the current total standing at 39.2 lakh acres.