Crime Today News
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on Thursday requested the Supreme Court to livestream the proceedings, while hearing the petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act 2025.
SCBA Honorary Secretary Vikrant Yadav wrote a letter to HS Jaggi, Registrar (Technology), stating that when the hearing took place on April 16, the Courtroom was overcrowded, leaving no space to sit or stand.
Many members felt suffocated and claustrophobic. Two Advocates even fainted in the Courtroom, he added.
On April 16, the three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan heard 10 petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The first petition was filed on April 4 by All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Member of Parliament Asaduddin Owaisi through Advocate Lzafeer Ahmad.
Owaisi stated in his petition that the 2025 Act took away various protections accorded to waqfs earlier.
He argued that diminishing the protection given to waqf properties while retaining such protections for religious and charitable endowments of other religions constituted hostile discrimination against Muslims and is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which prohibited discrimination on the grounds of religion.
The petition contended that while Parliament represented the will of the people, in today’s era of majoritarian politics, this Court has to discharge its constitutional duty as a sentinel on the qui vive to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA and chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board Amanatullah Khan filed a petition on April 5 through Advocate Adeel Ahmed.
Khan argued that the introduction of non-Muslim members to the Central Waqf Council and state waqf boards under Sections 9 and 14 was violative of Article 14, since it created a classification, which was not based on intelligible differentia. Besides, it did not have a rational nexus with the object of religious property administration.
The petition further argued that Section 3(r) of the Amendment Act restricted waqf creation to only Muslims who have practiced Islam for at least five years and who own the property. This disqualified historical forms of waqf by user and informal dedications.
The Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) also moved a petition through Advocate Adeel Ahmad, stating that inefficiencies in the functioning of waqf boards or mutawallis (caretaker of waqf properties) can be effectively addressed through discussions and the appointment of advisors, as recommended by the Sachar Committee Report, 2006.
It contended that the drastic overhaul proposed by the Amendment Act was not only unnecessary, but also an alarming interference into the religious affairs of the Muslim community. The changes would dilute the fundamental purpose of waqf, which is a practice deeply rooted in Quranic references and the Hadith since the time of Prophet Muhammad, it noted.
Maulana Arshad Madani filed a plea through Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi contending that several waqf properties would be vulnerable due to the mandatory timelines for uploading details on the online portal and database envisaged under the Amendment Act. This threatened the very existence of a large number of historical waqfs, particularly those created by oral dedication or without formal deeds, it pointed out.
The petition laid a challenge to the omission of ‘waqf by user’ from the definition of waqf. It states that ‘waqf by user’ was an evidentiary tool developed by courts and its removal would deprive a large number of older mosques and graveyards from the benefit of the judicial doctrine specifically recognised by the Supreme Court in the the 2019 Ayodhya judgment.
Kerala-based organisation Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema filed a plea through Advocate Zulfiker Ali PS challenging the validity of the 2025 Act on the grounds that it was designed to weaken the state waqf boards and convert waqf properties into government properties.
The petition alleged that the amendments would distort the religious character of waqfs, while also irreversibly damaging the democratic process that governs the administration of waqfs and waqf boards. It further stated that the 2025 Act was a blatant intrusion into the rights of a religious denomination to manage its own religious affairs, protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
Anjum Kadari moved a plea through: Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra contending that the selective amendment of waqf property would set a dangerous and discriminatory precedent, undermining the fundamental principles of equality, religious freedom and protection of minority rights. The petitioner said in order to uphold the validity and sanctity of judicial precedent and protect the constitutional rights of the Muslim community, the omission of ‘waqf by user’ and the Act itself must be reconsidered.
Taiyyab Khan Salmani filed a plea through Advocate Sanjeev Malhotra submitting that the restriction on who could create a waqf was in direct conflict with Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which did not prescribe any other condition except that a person must be Muslim, competent to contract within the meaning of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act and a resident of the territories to which the 1937 Act extended.
Mohammad Shafi filed a petition through Advocate Wajeeh Shafiq arguing that the amendments were hit by the principle of “quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum,” which translated to “what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly”. It said the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 interfered with the rights of the dedicator, of the users and also of the manager of waqf properties.
General Secretary of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board Mohammad Fazlurrahim filed a plea through Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman submitting that the Act was not to be seen in isolation, but in the context of various other executive orders, policing methods, de facto and raw exercises of power, and subordinate legislation that together form an onslaught on the principles of fraternity, equality and equal protection of law.
It said the text and the context of the law were both important in understanding whether the Act was against the principle of constitutional morality.
Dr Manoj Kumar Jha and Faiyaz Ahmad, Members of Parliament from the Rashtriya Janata Dal, filed a plea through Advocate Fauzia Shakil submitting that the 2025 Act violated Articles 1, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A of the Constitution. The petition contended that the law singled out Muslim religious endowments for intrusive government control, thereby discriminating on the basis of religion in violation of Articles 14 and 15.
The Bench will hear the matter at 2 pm today.
📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
