A Constitutional Battle Over Waqf Governance

On April 16, 2025, India’s Supreme Court will commence hearings on one of the most contentious legal disputes of the year: the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Passed by Parliament in March 2025 amid fierce opposition, the Act aims to overhaul the governance of Waqf properties—Islamic charitable endowments—by centralizing oversight, digitizing records, and resolving decades-old disputes. However, petitions led by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, opposition parties, and civil groups allege the law undermines minority rights and violates constitutional safeguards. On the other side, six BJP-ruled states and the Centre have rallied in support, calling the reforms “critical” for transparency and socio-economic justice. This article unpacks the legal, political, and social stakes of this high-stakes clash.

---

Key Petitioners Challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025

A three-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and including Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, will hear 10 petitions on April 16. The petitioners represent a cross-section of political and civil society voices:

1. AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi: Argues the Act grants “excessive powers” to government-appointed Waqf boards, risking misuse against Muslim communities.
2. AAP’s Amanatullah Khan: Claims the law bypasses community consent in managing religious assets.
3. RJD’s Manoj Kumar Jha: Alleges the Act violates federalism by centralizing Waqf governance.
4. TMC’s Mahua Moitra: Labels the law “majoritarian overreach” ahead of 2025 elections.
5. YSRCP, CPI, DMK, and Actor-Politician Vijay: Accuse the Centre of sidelining state inputs.

Additionally, advocates Hari Shankar Jain and Mani Munjal filed petitions claiming the Act discriminates against non-Muslims by privileging Waqf claims over other property rights.

---

BJP-Ruled States Defend the Act: Reforms vs. Rights

Six BJP-governed states—Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Haryana, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Maharashtra—have intervened to defend the Act, citing urgent administrative needs:

Haryana’s Push for Unified Governance

Haryana emphasized the Act’s role in resolving systemic issues:

• Pending Tribunal Cases: Over 1,200 unresolved Waqf disputes clogging courts.
• Incomplete Surveys: 40% of Waqf properties lack clear ownership records.
• Financial Mismanagement: Audits reveal ₹500 crore in unaccounted Waqf revenue since 2020.

The state asserts the Act’s centralized boards and digital portals will streamline accountability.

Rajasthan’s Fight Against Arbitrary Declarations

Rajasthan highlighted past abuses where private or state-owned lands were declared Waqf without due process. The Act mandates a 90-day public notice in newspapers before such declarations, allowing stakeholders to contest claims. “This ensures fairness,” the state argued, citing 78 disputed properties resolved since 2025.

Assam’s Defense of Tribal Lands

Assam backed Section 3E, which bars declarations in Scheduled/Tribal Areas (Sixth Schedule regions). With 8 tribal districts, Assam warned of “ethnic tensions” if religious claims override tribal land rights.

Maharashtra’s Data-Driven Approach

Maharashtra pledged to submit parliamentary records and empirical evidence of Waqf mismanagement, including a 2024 CAG report citing ₹1,200 crore in “misused funds.”

Uttarakhand Waqf Board’s Support

The Uttarakhand Waqf Board, a rare Muslim body backing the Act, praised its digital reforms: “Online portals will curb illegal encroachments and improve audit transparency.”

Centre’s Arguments: Transparency vs. Autonomy

The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, filed a caveat on April 8, 2025, seeking a hearing before any court order. Key arguments include:

1. Curbing Mismanagement: Over 600,000 registered Waqf properties (8 lakh acres) generate minimal revenue due to corruption.
2. Technology-Driven Governance: Mandatory digitization of records and GPS mapping to prevent land grabs.
3. Speedy Dispute Resolution: Special tribunals to resolve 30-year-old cases within 12 months.

However, critics like Owaisi counter: “The Act turns Waqf boards into government puppets, eroding our constitutional right to manage religious institutions.”

---

Legal Flashpoints: Articles 26, 30, and Federalism

The Supreme Court’s ruling will hinge on three constitutional questions:

Does the Act Violate Religious Autonomy?

Petitioners cite Articles 26 and 30, which grant minorities the right to manage religious affairs. They argue replacing elected Mutawallis (custodians) with government-nominated administrators breaches this safeguard.

Is the Act Discriminatory Toward Non-Muslims?

Advocate Hari Shankar Jain’s petition claims the law allows Waqf boards to “arbitrarily claim any property as Waqf,” disadvantaging non-Muslim owners.

Does Centralization Undermine Federalism?

Opposition states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu argue Waqf governance is a state subject, making the Act a federal overreach.

---

Political Implications: 2025 Elections and Minority Votes

With general elections looming, the verdict could reshape political narratives:

• BJP’s Pitch: Reforms ensure “justice for all” by modernizing outdated systems.
• Opposition’s Counter: Framing the Act as “anti-minority” to consolidate Muslim and liberal votes.

States like Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, with large minority populations, are key battlegrounds.

---

What’s Next? Possible Outcomes

1. Upheld: The Act is validated, empowering the Centre to fast-track Waqf reforms.
2. Struck Down: Parliament must redraft clauses, delaying reforms indefinitely.
3. Middle Path: The Court retains core provisions (e.g., digitization) but scraps contentious clauses (e.g., centralized boards).

---

Conclusion: A Defining Moment for India’s Secular Fabric

The April 16 hearing marks a watershed moment in India’s struggle to balance religious autonomy with governance reforms. While BJP states champion transparency, petitioners warn of marginalizing minorities. The Supreme Court’s verdict will not only shape Waqf management but also test India’s commitment to pluralism in an increasingly polarized climate.