Manipur MLA From NDA Ally Challenges Waqf Amendment Act In Supreme Court; Says It Violates Fundamental Rights Of Scheduled Tribes

The petitioner in the plea has raised a concern over the amendment depriving Scheduled Tribes(STs) practising Islam from giving their property in Waqf. This violates their fundamental right to practise their religion, he contends.

Section 3E of the 2025 Act bars land owned by Scheduled Tribe members (under the Fifth or Sixth Schedule) from being declared waqf property.

“As per Section 3E holds that no land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes under the provisions of the Fifth Schedule or the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution shall be declared or deemed to be waqf property. Hence such a prohibition precludes the members of the Schedule Tribes from exercising their religious rights and thus discriminatory.”

Notably, the Impugned Act was given Presidential Assent on April 5 after the Parliament passed it on April 4 with hours of discussion.

The plea states the amendment to be arbitrary and an attempt to control Muslim religious properties. It states that “the amendment Act imposes arbitrary restrictions and enhances state control on Islamic religious endowments, deviating from the religious essence of waqf.”

It adds that “these amendments will distort the religious character of waqfs while also irreversibly damaging the democratic process in the administration of waqfs and Waqf Boards.”

“Further the amendments brought are in the nature of land grabbing by the Government, who is expected to protect the waqf properties.”

(1)Elimination of Waqf by User

The plea states that the elimination of Waqf by user provision is contrary to the decision in Ram Janambhoomi Case.

It explains : As per Muslim jurisprudence, waqf can be created either verbally or under a deed or by user. When a land or property has been being used for religious or pious purpose for long period by people belong to Muslim Community, such property or land becomes waqf by user. By amending the definition of waqf and omitting sub-clause (i) completely from Section 3 (r), the impugned Act aims to eliminate the concept of Waqf by user, which was duly recognized by constitution bench of this Hon'ble Court in M. Siddiq (D) thr. L.Rs v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors.

It stresses that many properties under Waqf are centuries old and come under the Waqf through Waqf by user as there existed no concept of Waqf deeds back then. Elimination of Waqf by user would lead to anyone challenging the status of such properties.

(2)Mandatory 5 year demonstration of practise of Islam

The petitioner states that the 5 year requirement is an intrusion to the personal life of an individual and his/her personal understanding of the Almighty. Additionally there is no objective test to determine the correct practise of.

“It is saddened to see that the legislation intruding into one's private life arbitrary and in fact requiring an exercise by which my religiosity has been examined and weighted by executive, whom has no legal and religious authority to do so.“

“Thus the “showing” and “demonstrating” of being a practicing Muslim cannot be made a criterion and there is no straitjacket formula or basis on which any Government can determine as to whether a person is a practicing Muslim or not.”

“It's purely an individual's prerogative and no authority, including any Muslim body can go into the aspect of one's relationship with Almighty. What is required is only his/her permanent dedication for the pious purposes and nothing more, in fact an individual's religiousness is never a factor and shouldn't be at all.”

(3)Waqf-alal-Aulad and Inheritance :

Section 3A(2) of the Act states that creating a waqf-alal-aulad (family waqf) cannot deny legal inheritance rights, including those of women. While the creator can name beneficiaries and exclude others, similar to wills and gifts, the law limits this exclusivity. Despite the waqf, inheritance laws still apply to the property.

(4) Extended Time to Challenge Waqf Notification :

Earlier, Waqf notifications could only be challenged within one year. The new Act extends this to two years. Additionally, even after two years, a challenge is allowed if the applicant shows valid reasons for the delay, which effectively removes a strict time limit.

(5) Mandatory Inclusion of Non-Muslim Members:

The 2025 Act mandates at least two non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards. This is seen as undermining Muslim autonomy in managing their religious institutions and is argued to violate constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 26.

(6) Autonomy:

The inclusion of non- Muslim members shows lack of autonomy upon the Muslim community by the state to administer their faith and a violation of the equality principle.

“Be it any temple or any other religious endowment, the administration of such institutions shall be left to the people from the faith so as to maintain the sanctity and to ensure that such institutions are functioned as per their own faith-specific laws.”

“However, the impugned Act's imposition of non-Muslims and officers on Waqf governance singles out Muslims, violating equality under Article 14 equality and religious autonomy under Article 26 autonomy, setting a dangerous precedent for other faiths.”

(7) Government is the Judge, jury and executioner:

The plea explains : “The determination of a property, being a waqf or not is now in exclusive domine of the Government itself and the moment a dispute with regard to the property raises, the Government can appoint its own designated officer to determine its character whether it is a waqf or Government land.”

“In effect, the Government is the 'Judge, Jury and executioner'”

“Section 3C of the amended 2025 Act could lead to large scale usurpation of waqf properties by the Government. It is stated that, in the case the Government claims that a property identified or declared as waqf property is a Government Property, the same shall not be deemed to be waqf property and such dispute may be determined by designated officer after conducting an inquiry and determining whether the property belongs to the Government or not.”

(8)Waqf Act vs. Protected Monuments:

Section 3D of the 2025 Act says waqf declarations are void if the property is already a protected monument under heritage laws. This creates a conflict, as waqf property is meant to be permanently dedicated, and the principle “once a waqf, always a waqf” is well established by the courts.

“Waqf property by its very essence is a permanent dedication and the principle “once a waqf always a waqf” has been settled by this Hon'ble Court in a catena of judgments. Thus, the present attempt being made in Section 3D to now declare an existing waqf property as void is unsustainable.”

The following reliefs are sought :

A. Issue a writ or direction declaring the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 to be in violation of Article 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution and striking down the same

B. C. Issue a writ or direction declaring that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is unconstitutional, being in violation of Part III of the Constitution;

C. Pass such other Order or Directions as may be deemed necessary and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petition was filed through Abdulla Naseeh VT AoR.

Case Details : Sheikh Noorul Hassan Versus Union of India & Ors.