The Supreme Court of India is hearing a group of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, is listening to the arguments presented by different senior advocates and parties.
Many political leaders and organisations have filed petitions against the new law. These include AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, AAP’s Amanatullah Khan, Samajwadi Party leader Zia-ur-Rahman Barq, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD’s Manoj Kumar Jha, and various civil rights groups and religious bodies. In total, 10 petitions were listed, along with new ones added during the hearing.
What are the main arguments?
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the Waqf Bill violates Article 26 of the Constitution. Article 26 guarantees the freedom of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
Sibal said, “Through parliamentary legislation what is sought to be done is to intervene in an essential and integral part of a faith. I refer to Article 26, and many provisions of the Act violate Article 26.”
He also said the definition of Waqf under the new law is problematic. “Please see section 3R of the Unified Waqf Management Act. Please refer to the definition of waqf. Waqf means the permanent dedication by any person showing or demonstrating… that he has been practising Islam for the last 5 years. That’s why if I want to create a waqf, I have to show I have been practising Islam for the last 5 years, and how should the state decide whether and how I am a Muslim or not… what is the contrivance here?”
Sibal also opposed the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Council. He said, “Inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Council is a direct violation of Article 26.” He further argued that the Waqf Act 2025 allowing for non-Muslim representation is “a parliamentary usurpation of the faith of 200 million individuals of this country”.
Another senior advocate, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, requested that the Supreme Court should not refer the petitions to the High Court. He said, “The Waqf Act will have all-India ramifications; pleas should not be referred to the high court.”
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi also supported the petitions. He said, “Waqf by user is an established practice of Islam; it cannot be taken away.”
What did the Supreme Court say?
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna made some strong observations during the hearing. Replying to Sibal’s arguments, he said, “But in Hinduism, it does happen… so Parliament has enacted a law for Muslims… maybe not like the Hindus… Article 26 will not bar the enactment of law in this case… Article 26 is universal, and it is secular in the fashion that it applies to all.”
He added, “All ancient monuments, including the Jama Masjid, will remain protected.”
At one point, Chief Justice Khanna also commented on the history of land use. He said, “When we were in the Delhi High Court, we were told that the High Court itself is built on Waqf property.”
The Supreme Court also asked the central government an important question. It asked whether the Centre would allow Muslims to be part of Hindu religious trusts if the law allows non-Muslims in Muslim religious institutions. “Will you allow Muslims to be part of Hindu religious trusts?” the court asked.
Chief Justice Khanna also strongly condemned the violence that happened after the bill was passed. He said the situation was “very disturbing”.
Read: Supreme Court on Waqf Act: ‘No violation of Article 26’
