Samajwadi Party MP from Sambhal, Zia Ur Rehman, has approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, labeling it as "manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional." In his writ petition, he argues that the amendment infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and 300A.

The petition, filed through AOR Usman Ghani Khan and argued by Advocate Sulaiman Mohd Khan, asserts that the 2025 amendment introduces unjustified discrimination and arbitrary classifications. According to the plea, the Act creates unreasonable restrictions on the functioning and autonomy of waqf properties, violating the religious independence of the Muslim community.

“The classification made in the Act lacks any intelligible differentia or rational nexus to its objective, violating Article 14,” the petition states.

Read Also:- Two RJD MPs Challenge Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in Supreme Court Over Violation of Constitutional Rights

One of the major concerns raised is the disproportionate interference in the management of Muslim religious properties, especially when compared to Hindu and Sikh religious trusts, which continue to enjoy relative autonomy. The amendment significantly enhances state control over waqf affairs, thereby making the provisions discriminatory in nature and violating Article 15.

The plea strongly criticizes the new requirement introduced in the amendment which states that a person must be a practicing Muslim for at least five years to establish a waqf. This condition, the petitioner argues, has no basis in Islamic law or precedent, and disproportionately affects new converts to Islam, thereby infringing upon Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of religion.

“This restriction denies individuals their right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion freely,” the petition adds.

Read Also:- Petitions Filed in SC Challenging Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 for Violating Constitutional Rights of Muslims

The petition also objects to the removal of the waqf-by-user provision. This concept, affirmed by the Supreme Court in M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das (2019) 4 SCC 641, allows properties to be recognized as waqf based on long-term religious use.

“Eliminating this doctrine limits the power of Waqf Tribunals and violates Article 26, which safeguards the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs,” the plea highlights.

Another controversial provision challenged in the petition is the mandatory inclusion of two non-Muslim members in the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council. According to the petitioner, this move amounts to selective interference, as no such condition is imposed on the governance of other religious bodies like Hindu religious endowments.

“This selective imposition is arbitrary and discriminatory, directly infringing Articles 14 and 15,” the petition contends.

The amendment also transfers key administrative powers, such as determining the nature of waqf properties, from the Waqf Boards to District Collectors. The petitioner argues that this severely undermines waqf autonomy and contravenes Article 26, which grants religious groups the right to manage their institutions without state interference.

“This violates the principle established in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Madras v. Shri Laxmindar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shirur Mutt (1954 SCR 1005),” the petition notes.

Read Also:- Supreme Court To Hear Petitions Against Waqf Amendment Act On April 16

Another concern is the modification in the composition and authority of Waqf Tribunals. The petition points out that the amendment reduces the involvement of experts in Islamic law, thereby affecting fair adjudication of waqf-related disputes.

The petitioner also invokes Article 300A, arguing that the Amendment Act deprives individuals of their right to property without proper legal authority. By centralizing control and imposing state scrutiny on waqf assets, the Act undermines the voluntary religious dedications made by individuals.

“Such deprivation of property is against the doctrine laid down in K.K. Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (2001) 10 SCC 120, where the Court held that any deprivation must be just, fair, and reasonable,” the petition reads.

As of now, over ten petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court challenging various provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. These petitions collectively argue that the new law is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and infringes upon religious and property rights.