Supreme Court Grapples with Controversial Waqf Amendment Act

Muslims Raise Alarm Over Targeted Property Law

The Supreme Court is currently examining a controversial amendment to the Waqf Act, with petitioners arguing that it unfairly targets Muslims and violates their fundamental rights. Senior lawyers Rajeev Dhavan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioners, raised concerns about the law’s potential impact on religious freedom and secularism.

‘This Affects Every Muslim’

Dhavan emphasized the unique nature of the amendment, stating that it singles out Muslims in a way that no other religion’s property laws are treated. He highlighted the importance of Article 29, which guarantees the right to preserve culture, arguing that this amendment could undermine the entire secular framework of the country.

Singhvi echoed these concerns, pointing out that the requirement for proof of religious practice for waqf registration is unprecedented and discriminatory. He stated that this provision directly violates Article 15, which prohibits discrimination based on religion.

‘A Slippery Slope’

Ahmadi argued that the amendment’s retrospective nature effectively wipes out existing waqfs, raising concerns about the government’s intentions. He stressed that singling out one community for such drastic changes creates a dangerous precedent.

Court Acknowledges Drastic Changes

The Supreme Court also acknowledged the significant changes introduced by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, particularly regarding the consequences of non-registration. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, another petitioner’s lawyer, pointed out that the law now impacts more than just the individual managing the waqf, raising concerns about its potential for abuse.

Central Government’s Response

In response to the legal challenges, the Central government initially proposed to delay the implementation of key provisions of the amendment, including those related to the formation of waqf councils and the de-notification of waqf properties.

Ongoing Debate

However, the debate surrounding the amendment continues, with the petitioners urging the court to hear the case in its entirety and not limit its scope to the three issues initially earmarked. They argue that this is a matter of significant public importance that requires a comprehensive review.