Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Waqf Amendment Act, 2025
Government's Stance on Waqf
The Union government informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the concept of waqf, while rooted in Islamic tradition, is not a fundamental aspect of the faith. This assertion was made in response to several petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, explained to a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih that waqf boards perform secular roles, thus allowing for the inclusion of non-Muslims within these boards.
After over three hours of discussions, the court postponed the hearing until Thursday without issuing any interim orders.
A waqf is defined as an endowment established under Islamic law for religious, educational, or charitable purposes. Each state has a waqf board, which is a legal entity empowered to manage property.
Mehta emphasized that charity is a universal concept across religions, stating, “Charity is part of every religion. It is part of Christianity also, but the Supreme Court says it is not an essential part…Hindus have a system of daan [charity], Sikhs also have…but it is not an essential part.”
He further argued that the secular nature of waqf boards means that having a couple of non-Muslim members would not alter their character, asserting that waqf boards do not engage in any religious activities.
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing petitions that challenge the Waqf Amendment Act, which critics argue discriminates against Muslims and interferes with the management of waqf properties. The government defends the law, claiming it aims to prevent the misuse of waqf provisions for encroaching on both public and private lands.
The 2024 Waqf Amendment Bill proposed changes to 44 sections of the 1995 Waqf Act, including provisions for non-Muslims to serve on waqf boards, limitations on property donations, and modifications to the functioning of waqf tribunals. This bill was approved by Parliament on April 4, received presidential assent on April 5, and became effective on April 8.
Political parties such as the Congress and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen have contested the constitutionality of the bill in the Supreme Court.
Petitioners argue that allowing non-Muslims on waqf boards discriminates against Muslims, especially since non-Hindus are not permitted on Hindu endowment boards.
During the hearing, Mehta clarified that Hindu endowments are focused solely on religious activities, while waqf boards handle secular matters. He stated, “Hindu endowment activities are very pervasive…Waqf boards do not touch upon religious activity at all.”
Mehta also noted that many petitions against the Act were filed as public interest litigations rather than by individuals directly affected. He argued that the question of Parliament's legislative competence is irrelevant, asserting that a few petitioners cannot claim to represent the entire Muslim community, especially given that they received 96 lakh representations during the bill's consideration.
In April, the court suggested a stay on certain provisions of the Act, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in waqf boards and the denotification of properties recognized as waqf by courts.