On Tuesday, May 27, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to the Union Government and all State Governments on a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Waqf Act 1995. This petition was filed by Nikhil Upadhyay, and it has been tagged along with another similar petition that challenges the same law.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard the matter. During the hearing, CJI Gavai asked Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, the counsel for the petitioner, why the Waqf Act, enacted in 1995, was being challenged now.

Read also: SC Collegium Recommends New Chief Justices for Five High Courts

"We will dismiss on the ground of delay. You are challenging the 1995 Act in 2025. Why should the challenge to the 1995 Act be allowed in 2025?" said CJI Gavai.

Advocate Upadhyay replied that the challenge also relates to the 2013 amendment to the Waqf Act. However, the Chief Justice responded, saying:

"Even then, from 2013 to 2025, it is a delay of 12 years."

Upadhyay also mentioned that the Supreme Court is already dealing with petitions filed in 2020 and 2021 challenging the Places of Worship Act 1991 and the National Minority Commission Act 1992.

Read also: Centre Appoints 7 Advocates as High Court Judges Across India

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union Government, informed the Court that while the earlier challenge to the Waqf Act 1995 was not allowed to be heard along with the batch challenging the 2025 amendment, the Government had no objection to the current petition being tagged with the ongoing challenge.

Following this, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union and all States/UTs, who are the respondents in the case.

The petitioner, Nikhil Upadhyay, has challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 3(r), 4, 5, 6(1), 7(1), 8, 28, 29, 33, 36, 41, 52, 83, 85, 89, and 101 of the Waqf Act 1995 as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025. It was argued that these sections violate Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner pointed out that only Muslims have a specific law governing the administration of their religious charitable properties, while people from other religions do not. This was presented as discriminatory, violating the principle of equality.

Read also: SC Collegium Recommends Three High Court Judges for Supreme Court Elevation

A key argument was regarding the definition of “Waqf” under Section 3(r), which describes it as a "permanent dedication." The petitioner argued:

"This definition is beyond the scope of administrative or judicially manageable limits and should specify that the property must be obtained in accordance with law."

The definition of “Mutawalli” (the person responsible for managing Waqf properties) was also challenged as being vague and uncertain.

Another major point raised was that the State incurs expenses from the public exchequer to verify Waqf properties, but similar financial support is not provided for the survey and verification of properties of other religious institutions. The petitioner argued:

"The cost of such verification should not be borne by the State and should instead be part of a common framework."

Case: NIKHIL UPADHYAY vs UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 502/2025