The Supreme Court on Monday heard a series of petitions challenging the recent Waqf Amendment Act, with senior legal experts questioning the constitutional validity of including non-Muslims in Waqf institutions. The controversial amendments, passed into law just last month, have stirred public protests and sparked debate over minority rights and religious autonomy.
Muslim control over Waqf institutions at risk, argue petitioners
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing one of the petitioners, strongly opposed the inclusion of non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council. He stated that such a move fundamentally alters the religious character of Waqf, which is defined as a Muslim’s dedication of property to God. “The creation of Waqf is not a secular act,” Sibal told the bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai. He warned that the new structure of the 22-member Council could potentially result in Muslims becoming a minority within their own religious institution.
Sibal compared the control over Hindu and Sikh endowments, which are exclusively managed by their respective communities, and asked why Waqf institutions should be treated differently. “There is no non-Hindu in Hindu religious trusts. The same principle must apply here,” he submitted.
When Chief Justice Gavai raised the example of Bodh Gaya, Sibal clarified that places of worship can be shared between religious groups but that does not change the religious nature of the endowment itself.
Criticism over ‘proof of religion’ requirement
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi added that the new law creates unreasonable hurdles for those seeking to register Waqf properties. He criticized provisions that may require individuals to prove religious practice over five years, calling it “a mechanism to infuse fear and delay”. “Which religious endowment in this country demands proof that you have been practising your faith for years? This defies logic,” Singhvi remarked.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also questioned how religious adherence would be verified. “Will I be asked if I pray five times a day or if I consume alcohol? Is that the criteria to judge someone’s faith?” he asked.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan emphasized that the matter also touches on broader secular values. He shared that one of his clients, a Sikh, wanted to contribute to a Waqf trust but fears the legal barriers will prevent him. “This is the first time religion is being redefined within a religious statute,” he argued.
Court maintains legislative presumption of constitutionality
Chief Justice Gavai, while acknowledging the arguments, reminded the courtroom that any law passed by Parliament carries a presumption of constitutionality. Courts, he said, must refrain from intervening unless a clear and egregious constitutional violation is evident.
The hearing is set to continue, with the court expected to examine in greater depth whether the amendments violate constitutional principles or minority rights.
Background on the amendment
The Waqf Amendment Act, passed in Parliament last month, has faced widespread backlash from Muslim organizations. Critics allege that it enables state interference in Waqf properties under the guise of inclusivity. The government, however, defends the law, claiming it promotes efficiency, transparency, and broader participation in managing Waqf assets.