The Supreme Court is expected to take up on April 15 a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, amid rising political temperatures and growing legal opposition to the controversial law, which came into force on Tuesday.
As per the details available on the apex court’s website, at least three petitions are scheduled for hearing on that day, prompting the Union government to proactively file caveats in two of them to ensure that no interim orders are passed without its side being heard.
The petitions listed include those filed by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief and Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, and the Kerala-based Samastha Kerala Jam’eyyat ul-Ulama. A caveat — a formal request by a party to be notified and heard before any judicial orders are issued in a case — has been submitted by the Centre in the petitions filed by Madani and the Kerala outfit.
The law, which received presidential assent on April 5 after being passed by both the Houses of Parliament earlier that week and was notified on Tuesday, makes sweeping changes to the governance and recognition of Islamic charitable endowments, or waqfs. The Centre has defended the amendments as necessary to curb corruption, enhance transparency and ensure better regulatory oversight. But several political parties, religious organisations and civil society groups have mounted a strong pushback, calling the law a direct infringement on religious autonomy and an unconstitutional imposition on the Muslim community.
The petitions, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenge the law on multiple grounds, alleging that it undermines the fundamental rights of Muslims and erodes age-old waqf traditions. Petitioners have particularly targeted provisions such as the removal of “waqf by user” — a principle that historically allowed recognition of religious endowments created through usage or oral tradition — and the invalidation of oral waqfs unless backed by formal deeds. These changes, critics say, jeopardise the status of mosques, graveyards and dargahs that have existed for centuries without written documentation.
To be sure, the new law only does this prospectively, other than in cases where there is an existing dispute with the government.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for some of the petitioners, had a day ago mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna for urgent listing. However, the CJI declined oral mentioning, citing the court’s “robust system” for listing matters.
Among the most strident critics of the law is Madani, whose petition warns that implementation of the amendments could leave thousands of historically valid waqf properties vulnerable to state control or derecognition. His petition, filed through advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, calls the law “unconstitutional and destructive,” particularly due to its deletion of waqf by user and the stringent new conditions for waqf registration and digitisation.
Similarly, Owaisi’s petition flags the requirement for a waqif — the person creating a waqf — to have practised Islam for at least five years. He argues that this provision is exclusionary, especially for new converts, and lacks any basis in Islamic jurisprudence. Congress MP Mohammed Jawed, who has also filed a separate plea, highlights the discriminatory treatment of Muslim religious institutions compared to Hindu and Sikh bodies, which are exempt from such invasive oversight.
Another provision under intense scrutiny is Section 3(ix)(b), which bars recognition of oral waqfs, and the newly inserted Section 3D, which prohibits waqf declarations over monuments protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. Petitioners contend this could lead to derecognition of historical mosques and shrines. Section 3E, which bars Scheduled Tribes from creating waqfs, has also been flagged as discriminatory and constitutionally untenable.
Opposition to the law has also come from prominent political parties. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which had earlier passed a resolution in the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly seeking withdrawal of the bill, has moved a writ petition in the Supreme Court through its deputy general secretary and Lok Sabha MP A Raja. The petition, settled by senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson, contends that the Act violates the fundamental rights of nearly five million Muslims in Tamil Nadu and 200 million Muslims across India.
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has also filed a separate writ petition under Article 32, describing the 2025 amendment as an “unconstitutional assault on the religious autonomy and personal rights of the Muslim community.” The party has urged the court to stay the enforcement of the law, warning of “irreparable loss” to waqf properties and institutions pending judicial review.
Collectively, the petitions argue that the new law violates the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and proportionality under the Constitution.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which overhauls the framework first established under the 1995 and 2013 versions of the law, was pushed through Parliament in a charged political climate. It was cleared by the Lok Sabha on April 3 and by the Rajya Sabha early the next morning, after a marathon 13.5-hour debate marked by heated exchanges between the government and Opposition members.
On Tuesday, the Union minority affairs ministry notified the Act. “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the Central Government hereby appoints the 8th day of April, 2025 as the date on which the provisions of the said Act shall come into force,” the notification said.
(With inputs from Vrinda Tulsian)
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hindi
Italian
Marathi
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish