NEW DELHI: Congress MP Mohammad Jawed and AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi on Friday challenged the validity of the validity of the Waqf Amendment Bill, which has been approved by both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and is now awaiting Presidential assent.
Jawed's plea alleged the bill imposed "arbitrary restrictions" on Waqf properties and their management, undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.
The petition, filed through advocate Anas Tanwir, said the proposed law discriminated against the Muslim community by "imposing restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments".
Owaisi's plea was filed by advocate Lzafeer Ahmad.
In his petition filed in the top court, Jawed said that he has challenged the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 because it violates rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, 29, and 300-A of the Constitution.
Jawed, an MP from the Kishanganj Lok Sabha Constituency in Bihar, said he was also a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
"The Bill imposes arbitrary restrictions on Waqf properties and their management, thereby undermining the religious autonomy of the Muslim community. The Bill discriminates against the Muslim community by imposing restrictions that are not present in the governance of other religious endowments," the plea of Jawed said.
Citing an example he said, while Hindu and Sikh religious trusts continue to enjoy a degree of self-regulation, the amendments to the Wakf Bill, 1995, disproportionately increase state intervention in Waqf affairs.
"Such differential treatment amounts to a violation of Article 14 in addition to introduction of arbitrary classifications that lack a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved, making it impermissible under the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness," he added.
Jawed also mentioned that the Bill introduces restrictions on the creation of Waqfs based on the duration of one's religious practice. "Such a limitation is unfounded in Islamic law, custom or precedent and infringes upon the fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Article 25. The restriction discriminates against individuals who have recently converted to Islam and wish to dedicate property for religious or charitable purposes, thereby violating Article 15," the plea added.
He further said that the Bill omits the concept of Waqf-by-user thus removing certain provisions, disregarding established legal principles. This limits the Waqf Tribunal's ability to recognize properties as Waqf based on historical usage, violating Article 26, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their affairs.
The enhanced role of the state authorities in Waqf administration impinges on the right of the Muslim community to manage its institutions. The Bill shifts key administrative functions, such as the power to determine the nature of Waqf properties, from the Waqf Board to the District Collector. This transfer of control from religious institutions to government officials dilutes the autonomy of Waqf management and contravenes Article 26(d). Such an amendment is also against settled law, the pea added.
The Bill reduces representation of individuals with expertise in Islamic law, influencing the adjudication of Waqf-related disputes.
"This change disproportionately affects willingness to resort to legal recourse through specialised tribunals, in contrast to the robust protections provided to other religious institutions under their respective endowment laws," the plea said.
Seeking a stay on the Bill, Jawed said, the transfer of control from religious institutions to government officials dilutes the autonomy of Waqf management and contravenes Article 26(d). Such an amendment is also against settled law, as held in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Madras versus Shri Laxmindar Tirtha Swamiyar of Shirur Mutt.
"By expanding State control over Waqf assets, limiting the ability of individuals to dedicate property for religious purposes, and subjecting Waqf properties to heightened scrutiny, the Bill goes against this Court's decision in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi versus the State of Bombay, wherein it was held that transferring control of religious property to secular authorities is an infringement of religious and property rights," the plea said.
(With inputs from Online Desk)
