All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Bangalore Jama Masjid Imam Approach Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act 2025

Mohamed Maqsoon Imran, chief imam of Jamia Masjid, Bengaluru City, has filed a writ petition challenging the Waqf(Amendment) Act, 2025 on the grounds that it violates Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution by completely altering the character and essence of the waqf, which is a form of permanent dedication of movable or immovable property for any purpose recognised by Muslim law as pious, religious or charitable.

It is stated that the amendments distort the religious character of waqfs while also irreversibly damaging the democratic process in the administration of waqfs and waqf Boards.

This Public interest litigation protects the Muslim community's constitutional rights, ensuring Waqf properties, which are the epi centers of community and backbone for the education and social needs of the common Muslims, remain under the control of the community, exclusively by its adherents, free from outsider interference, as mandated by the faith-specific laws and upheld by judicial precedent.

The petition, filed through AOR Abid Ali Beeran P., has sought to strike down the challenged provisions of the Amendment Act as unconstitutional and seeks a complete restoration of the Waqf Act, 1995.

Various provisions such as deletion of waqf by user, pre-condition of 5 years as practising Muslim for create of waqf, diluting waqf-alal-aulad, extension of limitation period to 2 years for challenging the notification of waqf, inclusion of two non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council, Board of Aquf, and State Waqf Board have been challenged by the petitioners as violating various fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

It is also stated that the insertion of Section 3C, whereby the contention waqf properties shall not be deemed as waqf property unless the designated officer conducts an inquiry and determines it status as to whether it belongs to Government or not, will lead to large scale usurpation of waqf properties.

And so long as the inquiry is pending, the property will not be deemed to be a waqf. Hence it is the submission of the petitioner herein that a dispute resolution mechanism, that on the face of it lacks the basic requirements of impartiality, fairness and equity is manifestly arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Another petition has been filed by Mohammed Fazlurrahim and All India Muslim Personal Board (AIMPLB) via the General Secretary, drawn by AOR Talha Abdul Rahman, terming the 2025 Act as threatening to marginalise the Muslim minority by impinging upon their religious identity and practices.

The petition states that multiple hurdles are introduced in the creation of waqf by imposing certain conditions, which are unknown to the other religious when it comes to creation of their religious endowments. Secondly, the administration of waqf has been substantially taken away from the hands of the Muslims and given to statutory bodies. 

Similarly, removing protection from adverse possession under the law of limitation and giving substantive part of adjudicatory mechanism to the administrative officers of the choice of the government by creating presumptions in favour of the government is seriously violative of the basic constitutional protection guaranteed to religious groups, here Muslims.

It is stated that the Amendment violates the constitutional principle of the right to freedom of conscience. Because the discrimination is not only hostile, but also under-classification in various provisions.

The scheme brought through the impugned amendment has in a way demolished the entire scheme of protection available to Muslims in an unequal, discriminatory, and arbitrary manner by exercising majoritarian strength, discarding the sacrosanct Constitutional principles. It is the Constitutional provisions and its values that guard each citizen, individually and as a group against the power bestowed by the Constitution. The silences of the Constitution are equally important and cannot be discarded.

The petition more particularly challenges the provision which puts a condition on the creation of waqf, that the person must be a practising Muslim.

The subjectivity introduced vide the Impugned Act in respect of “practicing” or “non-practicing Muslim” is ex facie violation of the right of conscience, as it effectively introduces a concept of administrative review of one's extent of faith and conscience, which would necessarily be followed by a judicial review; and for neitherany standards could have been or have been provided – and it is also a vague provision.

The Supreme Court is hearing the petitions against the Waqf Amendment Act on April 16.