India’s controversial Muslim endowment law faces legal test in apex court

Cluster of petitions from political leaders, civil rights bodies, and Islamic scholars has challenged the Muslim endowment or Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 before India’s apex court, accusing the government of violating minority rights

NEW DELHI, India (MNTV) –  A sweeping new law aimed at reforming the management of Islamic religious endowments—known as waqf properties—has triggered an unprecedented legal battle in the Supreme Court of India.

At least four major petitions have been filed challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, with petitioners calling it discriminatory, unconstitutional, and a blatant attack on India’s secular foundations.

The petitions, filed by Delhi legislator Amanatullah Khan, opposition MP Mahua Moitra, the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), and Muslim legal scholars represented by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), argue that the new legislation fundamentally alters the waqf system in India—undermining the rights of the Muslim community to manage their religious and charitable institutions autonomously.

According to Amanatullah Khan, a sitting MLA and former chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, the Act introduces sweeping changes under the guise of reform and “violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A of the Constitution.”

“The legislation enables arbitrary executive interference, curtails religious freedom, and undermines the community’s centuries-old tradition of managing waqf assets,” Khan’s petition asserts.

The amended law, officially titled the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995 (UMEED), was passed by the Indian Parliament in April 2025 and received Presidential assent shortly thereafter. Among the most contentious changes is the abolition of ‘waqf by user’, a long-standing principle allowing properties used continuously for religious purposes to be recognised as waqf—even without formal deeds.

Another drastic change limits the right to create waqf only to persons “practising Islam for at least five years,” and makes it mandatory that the individual owns the property being dedicated.

“These provisions are not just exclusionary but also introduce a dangerous precedent of state-administered religious eligibility,” Khan stated in his petition.

The APCR, a national civil liberties group, warned that the UMEED Act poses an existential threat to the autonomy of India’s Muslim minority.

“The overhaul is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and an alarming interference into the religious affairs of the Muslim community,” APCR submitted. “It dilutes the very purpose of waqf, which is rooted in Islamic theological and charitable traditions.”

Quoting the 2006 Sachar Committee Report, the petition emphasized that inefficiencies in waqf administration could have been addressed through advisory mechanisms and community-led reforms—not through “legislative bulldozing.”

The APCR further highlighted the elimination of protections such as independent waqf tribunals, the digital-only registration regime, and the replacement of the term “Muslim experts” in key roles with bureaucratic appointees, some of whom may not even be of the faith.

“It is a targeted dismantling of an ecosystem developed over centuries,” the APCR stated. “Instead of rectifying administrative flaws, it strips the community of its legal safeguards.”

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra—not a member of the Muslim community—entered the legal fray citing procedural violations during the legislative process. In her petition, she accused the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) of bypassing democratic norms and suppressing opposition voices.

“The draft report was circulated to members just a day before the scheduled vote, giving them no time to deliberate,” her petition states. “Even worse, dissent notes from 10 opposition MPs were arbitrarily redacted without justification before the report was tabled in Parliament.”

Moitra also raised constitutional objections to the inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council, stating that such mandates erode the principle of self-governance in religious affairs.

She contended that Sections 4, 5, 10, 12, 33, and 44 of the new law create a “dual standard” for Muslim endowments compared to those of other religions, and violate the doctrine of equal treatment and the freedom to profess and manage religious institutions under Articles 25 and 26.

In a searing petition filed by prominent Islamic scholar Mohammed Fazlurrahim and others, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) condemned the Act as “hostile, discriminatory, and rooted in majoritarian overreach.”

Their petition warns that the new provisions:

• Impose ideological gatekeeping by requiring proof of religious practice before allowing waqf creation.
• Remove community control by mandating that non-Muslims can serve on waqf governing boards.
• Enable land takeover by shifting adjudicatory power to government-appointed collectors, bypassing judicial safeguards.
• Dismantle protective legal doctrines, such as the waqf-by-user and exemption from adverse possession under the Limitation Act.

“It is not merely a policy shift but a betrayal of constitutional secularism,” the petition reads. “The Act creates a class of religious endowments uniquely burdened and isolated, turning Muslim religious assets into liabilities under bureaucratic siege.”

The AIMPLB warned that the changes could lead to mass dispossession of waqf assets and a weakening of the institutions that support minority education, health care, and religious welfare.

Common ground

Despite representing different sectors—legislators, activists, scholars—all four petitions converge on a central claim: the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 undermines India’s secular character and violates core constitutional principles.

They collectively argue that the new law:

• Violates the right to equality (Article 14) by singling out the Muslim community for additional legal burdens.
• Curtails religious freedom (Articles 25 and 26) by interfering in endowment creation and governance.
• Erodes the right to manage minority institutions (Articles 29 and 30), thereby weakening educational autonomy.
• Deprives individuals of property rights (Article 300A) through vague administrative mechanisms.

The petitions also reference past judicial rulings—from Shirur Mutt to Puttaswamy—asserting that freedom of conscience, religious autonomy, and non-interference are not mere ideals but enforceable constitutional guarantees.

The government, however, defends the UMEED Act as a long-overdue reform aimed at ensuring transparency, eliminating encroachments, and standardising waqf management.

An official from the Ministry of Minority Affairs claimed that the law “streamlines waqf governance, introduces digital accountability, and curbs misuse of waqf lands.”

But Muslim leaders see these justifications as hollow.

“A ceremonial incantation of governance cannot override fundamental rights,” said one petitioner. “The State must be a neutral arbiter—not a religious supervisor.”

They say the case touches on more than religious administration—it strikes at the heart of questions about majoritarianism, state overreach, and the resilience of India’s secular democracy.

“If the law is allowed to stand,” warned APCR’s counsel, “it opens the floodgates for similar encroachments into other religious communities. The Constitution cannot allow such erosion in the name of reform.”

As India’s top court prepares for hearings, the eyes of millions—legal experts, religious leaders, civil rights defenders, and ordinary citizens—will be fixed on the outcome.