Delhi legislator and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Amanatullah Khan has filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. His plea comes just a day after two other similar writ petitions were filed against the bill.
Khan argues that the proposed changes in the bill threaten the religious and cultural autonomy of the Muslim community, and would lead to excessive executive control over the management of religious and charitable institutions run by Muslims.
"The impugned provisions infringe this autonomy by statutorily altering the essential religious practice of waqf dedication recognized under Muslim law," the petition states.
Key Amendments Challenged in the Petition:
1. Renaming the Waqf Act:
The bill proposes changing the name of the Waqf Act, 1995 to "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development". Critics argue this changes the essence of the original legislation that primarily safeguarded Muslim religious endowments.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Slams Kerala Temple Over Brutal Tree Cutting: Compensation to Be Paid From Festival Offerings
2. Restricting Waqf Creation (Section 3(r)):
The amendment requires that only Muslims who have been practicing Islam for at least five years can create a waqf. This disqualifies older waqf practices such as waqf-by-user or informal dedications.
“Article 29 guarantees the right of any section of citizens having a distinct culture to conserve the same. Waqf, being integral to the cultural and religious identity of the Muslim community, falls within this protection.”
3. Removal of Waqf-by-User Provision:
The omission of this historic provision is seen as a direct attack on age-old religious practices that are part of Muslim heritage.
4. Inheritance Rights Under Waqf-alal-aulad (Section 3A):
The petition questions the clause that mandates waqf-alal-aulad (family waqf) to recognize inheritance rights, especially those of women. While the intention may be gender justice, critics argue it interferes with the traditional structure of such waqfs.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rules: No Recovery of Excess Payment Without Fraud or Misrepresentation by Employee
5. Mandatory Digitization and Centralization (Section 3B):
Waqf institutions must upload property details to a central government portal within six months.
"The Bill centralizes power through mandatory digitisation (Section 3B) and central rulemaking (Section 108B) without adequate consultation with State Waqf Boards. This violates the federal distribution of powers,” the plea adds, referring to the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India judgment.
6. Government Land Cannot Be Declared as Waqf (Section 3C):
Any government-owned property is excluded from being considered waqf, even if historical evidence supports its waqf status.
"This disproportionately affects Muslims. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, the court emphasized the principle of substantive equality, which this amendment fails to uphold,” the petition notes.
7. Non-Muslim Members on Waqf Boards (Sections 9 and 14):
The amendment allows up to two non-Muslims to be part of the State Waqf Boards. The petition claims this dilutes the religious character of these bodies and lacks a clear constitutional basis.
“There is no intelligible differentia nor a rational nexus to justify the inclusion of non-Muslims in bodies meant to oversee Islamic religious properties,” the plea argues.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies Key Difference Between Avoidance Transactions and Fraudulent or Wrongful Trading Under IBC
8. Appointment of Non-Muslim CEOs (Amended Section 2):
The Bill removes the requirement that the Chief Executive Officer of a Waqf Board must be a Muslim, sparking concerns about loss of cultural understanding and accountability.
9. Written Deeds for Waqf Creation (Section 36):
Where previously waqf creation could be declared orally, the amendment now mandates a written deed, and waqfs not registered within six months risk legal extinction.
“This amounts to extinguishment of property rights without fair compensation, violating the principles laid down in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka,” the petition contends.
10. Reduced Role of Tribunals (Sections 33 and 83):
The amendment removes the Tribunal’s power to stay eviction orders, shifting adjudication powers to executive officers like the District Collector.
“This violates the principle of fair procedure under Article 21, as held in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,” the plea states.
The petition has been filed through a team of advocates including Adeel Ahmed (AoR), Mujeeb ur Rahman, Taqdees Fatima, Atul Yadav, and Areeba Athar.
