Will the Waqf Act pass the legal challenge?

During the debate in Parliament on the , now Act, minority affairs minister Kiren Rijiju and home minister Amit Shah repeatedly emphasised — in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha — that the law would not be applied retrospectively.

In other words, decisions made prior to the enactment of this law would remain unaffected, and only those cases arising after its implementation would be within the purview of the new law. This position was reiterated in the official gazette notification issued on 9 April, following the President’s assent to the Bill.

However, legal experts suggest that the issue may be . Supreme Court advocate Ebad ur Rehman notes that the law contains certain ambiguities that could potentially allow its application to older cases — particularly those involving properties whose waqf documentation is incomplete or missing.

In effect, the new Act appears to be in conflict with the Supreme Court’s long-standing principle of “once a waqf, always a waqf”, which underscores the inalienable nature of waqf properties. It also runs counter to the landmark 1954 judgement in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, which prohibits the transfer of control over religious properties to secular authorities.

Notably, the ministry of minority affairs operates a body called the Waqf Assets Management System of India — a centralised databank of all waqf properties in the country. Managed by the government of India, this institution ironically adopts as its core slogan the very principle that now seems to be under strain: “once a waqf, always a waqf.”

All eyes are now on the Supreme Court of India, which is set to hear multiple petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. As of now, 15 petitions have been filed questioning the constitutional validity of the new law. These challenges come from a diverse group — political leaders, religious organisations and civil society groups — indicating a broad spectrum of opposition to the legislation.

Beyond contesting the Act’s constitutionality, the petitioners’ immediate priority is to seek a stay on its implementation. Senior advocate Anas Tanwir, who is representing Congress MP Mohammad Jawed from Kishanganj, Bihar, told National Herald, “We will try to obtain a stay order right away.”

However, he acknowledged that securing such an order is not straightforward, as there exists a legal presumption that laws passed by Parliament are constitutional.

What is unusual in this case, Tanwir added, is the government’s proactive step to file a caveat — a precautionary legal measure — indicating it fears that the petitioners might succeed in securing a stay.

“It’s rare for the government to file a caveat in such matters,” he noted. The Supreme Court usually adheres to a long-standing principle: legislation passed by Parliament is presumed constitutional unless proven otherwise by a constitutional court.

For a successful challenge, petitioners must demonstrate a clear violation of constitutional provisions or — a high bar that the court has consistently upheld in precedent setting cases.

Over the years, several laws and legal provisions have been challenged in the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides the foundation for such challenges, declaring any law that infringes upon fundamental rights as void.

One prominent example is the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), enacted in 2019 amid widespread nationwide protests. The law sparked a flurry of legal challenges questioning its constitutionality. These cases are still pending before the apex court. Interestingly, the rules governing the Act were notified only in 2024, nearly five years after its passage.

A contrasting case is that of the three farm laws introduced in 2020. Despite securing Parliamentary approval and Presidential assent, these laws faced fierce opposition from farmers and civil society, eventually leading to a nationwide movement.

The Supreme Court intervened, directing the Central government to pause the implementation of the laws while the matter was under judicial review. In the case of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, petitioners have raised serious constitutional concerns, alleging violations of several fundamental rights — including the right to equality and the freedom of religion.

The Act is being challenged for being manifestly arbitrary and in violation of key constitutional provisions such as Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300-A. According to most of the petitioners, the legislation undermines the religious autonomy of the Muslim community by stripping them of their right to manage waqf properties and religious institutions. They argue that the Act discriminates on religious grounds and is in conflict with the Shariat Act.

The core of their argument hinges on the violation of Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination based on religion.

Petitioners challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act have raised serious concerns about what they describe as excessive government interference in the management of waqf properties — an intrusion they believe undermines the religious autonomy of the Muslim community.

They argue that the Act irreversibly dilutes the statutory protections historically afforded to waqfs. Particular alarm has been expressed over provisions mandating the uploading of property details, which, petitioners fear, could expose historically undocumented waqf properties to legal and administrative vulnerabilities.

The list of petitioners reflects a broad coalition of political leaders, religious organisations, and civil society representatives. Among them are:

• Mohammad Jawed, Congress MP from Kishanganj and also a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Waqf Bill

• , TMC Lok Sabha MP

• Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMIM chief and MP from Hyderabad

• Amanatullah Khan, AAP MLA from Okhla, Delhi

• Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), a civil rights NGO

• Both factions of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind

• Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, a Kerala-based Sunni scholars’ body

• Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), represented by deputy general secretary and MP A. Raja

• Imran Pratapgarhi, Congress MP

• All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), a prominent Muslim organisation

• Manoj Jha, Rajya Sabha MP from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD)

• Fayaz Ahmed, RJD leader

• Anjum Kadari, social activist

In addition, several other individuals and entities have filed petitions, bringing the total to 15, though not all names are explicitly listed in available sources. The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing on these petitions for 16 April following Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s assurance on 7 April that the matter would be given urgent consideration.

The court’s decision will be pivotal — determining whether the amendments violate constitutional principles and must be struck down or whether they fall within the permissible bounds of parliamentary legislation.