New Delhi, May 20, 2025 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard extensive arguments challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, with petitioners describing the law as a covert means of acquiring waqf properties belonging to the Muslim community, India’s largest religious minority.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih spent a full day hearing senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, Rajeev Dhavan, and Huzefa Ahmadi, on the petitioners’ plea to stay the implementation of the Act, which came into force on April 8.
Chief Justice Gavai reminded the court that a parliamentary statute carries a presumption of constitutionality. “Today, you [petitioners] are only arguing for interim relief. The presumption in favour of a parliamentary law is that of constitutionality,” he said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal countered that this presumption is rebuttable if there is a prima facie breach of constitutional rights. “The 2025 amendments are a ruse to capture waqfs. The government can acquire property through legislative diktat, without compensation, violating Article 25 of the Constitution,” he submitted.
Key Contentions Against the 2025 Act
Mr. Sibal raised serious concerns about Section 3C, which allows any individual to initiate a dispute over waqf land, triggering an inquiry by a government-appointed official. “This halts all use of the property—schools, hospitals, burial grounds—without a timeline or due process. There are no restrictions against demolition or creation of third-party rights during this period,” he said.
The inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards was also challenged. “No other religious endowment board—be it Hindu or Sikh—permits governance by members of other faiths. Why then should waqf be treated differently?” Sibal asked.
Another contentious provision, Section 3D, voids waqf status of properties once they are declared protected monuments under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, or the Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Mr. Sibal argued this was “patently expropriatory” and amounted to retroactive loss of religious identity.
“Preservation laws cannot override constitutional protections under Articles 25 and 26. Religious practices and monuments can coexist,” he added.
Impact on Unregistered Waqfs
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi highlighted the disproportionate impact on unregistered waqfs, many of which are centuries old and exist by user tradition. “The Act bars these waqfs from approaching courts. About 50% of over eight lakh waqfs fall into this category,” he noted.
Mr. Singhvi also critiqued the Act’s use of waqf registration data, calling the government’s claim of a 116% spike in waqf properties since 2013 misleading. “The WAMSI portal merely reflects updated records, not new waqf creation,” he said.
Allegations of Discrimination
Petitioners took aim at Section 3E, which prohibits any land belonging to Scheduled Tribes from being declared waqf property. “This section is discriminatory,” they argued.
Mr. Ahmadi and Mr. Sibal further challenged Section 3(r), which requires proof of practising Islam for at least five years before one can create a waqf. “Is there a test of faith? This is arbitrary and infringes on religious freedom,” they contended.
Mr. Singhvi called this requirement an unconstitutional imposition. “Asking proof of one's faith violates Article 14. The five-year period suspends fundamental rights arbitrarily,” he said.
A Threat to Secularism?
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan warned that the amendments erode India’s secular fabric. “Beliefs, practices, and property sustaining religion form the bulwark of religious freedom. Take these away, and secularism becomes suspect,” he said.
What’s Next?
The Centre is expected to present its counter-arguments on Wednesday, May 21. The case is being closely watched for its implications on minority rights, religious freedom, and the limits of state power in managing religious endowments.
0 Comments