Crime Today News
The Kerala State Waqf Board has opposed the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in the Supreme Court, calling it unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental rights of citizens.
Filing a preliminary reply in the Apex Court, the Board alleged that the 2925 Act subverted the principles of secularism.
Noting that all religions in the country were not having laws with regard to the management of properties dedicated for religious purpose, the petitioner alleged that the Government of India was following a ‘pick and choose’ policy against some religions and trying to control their properties.
The Board detailed its objections to the amendments made to the Waqf Act, 1995, such as the condition of five-year practice of Islam to create Waqfs, omission of the waqf-by-user, allowing Government officials to decide disputes regarding encroachment of Government properties, permitting the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards, changes to Waqf Al Aulad, and bar on non-Muslims on creating Waqfs, on the grounds that the same were challenged in other petitions.
Regarding the proposal to include non-Muslims in the Boards and the Central Waqf Council, the petitioner submitted that it would violate Article 26 of the Constitution, which conferred the fundamental right on a religious denomination to manage its own affairs. Since the Waqf Boards were primarily dealing with religious endowments, non-Muslim persons may not be in a position to take proper decisions concerning such matters, it noted.
The Board said the amendments in the 2025 Act showed that this law was not prepared with the intention of strengthening the system of Waqf. Since the fund from various Auqaf were utilised for the functioning of the Boards, the number of representatives of Mutawallis should be increased and elected democratically.
Filed through Advocate Subhash Chandran KR, the plea raised objection to the omission of Section 40, which had conferred powers on the Waqf Boards to decide whether a property was Waqf land or not. It said that several decisions taken by the Waqf Boards under Section 40 have been upheld by various High Courts and the Apex Court. Conferring this power to District Collectors would make the process lengthy and complicated, and create the possibility of losing Waqf lands, noted the plea.
It also raised objection to the taking away the power of Waqf Survey Commissioners and entrusting the same to the District Collectors on the grounds that it would hamper the surveys of Waqf properties as the District Administration may not be able to carry out this task effectively amidst their other assignments.
The Board claimed that the Joint Parliamentary Committee neither visited Kerala, nor consulted the major stakeholders in Kerala, which showed a discriminatory attitude.
It further took objection to the inclusion of an appeal provision against the Waqf Tribunal’s decisions, saying that it would delay the adjudication.
The new sub-section added to Section 61 would force the Muttawalli to act as per the instructions of the District Collector, as violation may lead to imprisonment. The application of the Limitation Act to the Waqf Act would prejudice the recovery of alienated properties.
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
