The Supreme Court is now weighing the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act,2025,following a writ petition filed by the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR). The challenge centers on whether the Act violates Articles 14, 25, 26, and 300A of the Indian Constitution, raising concerns about religious freedom and property rights. This case carries significant implications, especially for religious minorities and the management of religious endowments, and provides a comparative lens for understanding similar issues within the U.S. legal and social landscape.

The term ‘waqf’ refers to a religious endowment in Islamic law, typically involving the donation of land or property for religious or charitable purposes. these endowments are managed by waqf boards, which are responsible for ensuring the properties are used in accordance with the donor’s intentions. Across the globe, waqfs play a crucial role in funding religious institutions, schools, hospitals, and poverty alleviation programs.

In the United States, the concept of charitable trusts bears some resemblance to waqfs. Charitable trusts are legal arrangements where assets are held for religious, educational, or other philanthropic purposes. Like waqfs, these trusts are subject to specific regulations and oversight to ensure they are used for their intended purposes. these include institutions such as the Ford Foundation or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that manage large endowments for charitable purposes.

The APCR’s petition, filed shortly after the Presidential assent was granted on April 5, argues that the 2025 Amendment Act represents an “alarming interference” in the religious affairs of the muslim community. They contend that the Act dilutes the fundamental purpose of waqf,a practice deeply rooted in Quranic references and the Hadith since the time of Prophet Muhammad. The petition specifically targets Section 40 of the Act, claiming it undermines the principles of natural justice enshrined in the original Waqf Act of 1995.

Key Arguments Against the Waqf Amendment Act

1. Title Substitution: A Symbolic Shift?

   One of the primary grounds for the challenge is the Act’s renaming to “Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Advancement.” The petitioners argue this substitution is far from neutral, alleging it’s “a deliberate attempt to rewrite history and dismantle the cultural legacy of colonised communities.”

   The term Waqf has deep-rooted religious, historical, and cultural meaning, and its erasure reflects a colonial mindset aimed at diluting indigenous legal traditions under the guise of modernization… The Global South is actively engaged in decolonizing its legal and intellectual traditions, yet this legislative change reflects a redundant and regressive colonial sentiments to erase historical legacies and religious symbols under the garb of ‘modernization.’
   APCR Petition to the Supreme Court

   this argument taps into a broader debate about cultural preservation and the impact of legislative changes on minority communities. Advocates for the original title argue there’s no practical reason to change it.
   
   Conversely, proponents of the amendment might assert that the new title reflects a modern, streamlined approach to waqf management, aimed at improving efficiency and development.

   while the legislature advocates for restoring ‘indigenous institutions’ in other spheres, this amendment reinforces colonial language and frameworks. The original title of the principle Act does not create any burden on beneficiaries or the legal community. There is no compelling legal, administrative, or social necessity to replace the term Waqf, a universally recognized concept in both Islamic law and Indian jurisprudence.
   APCR Petition to the Supreme Court

2. Religious Discrimination and Autonomy

   The petition asserts that the amendment unfairly interferes with the religious affairs of the Muslim community because similar restrictions aren’t applied to non-Muslim religious institutions.This, they argue, violates principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination.

   The inclusion of Non-Muslims in the religious affairs of the Muslim minority is not a step toward ‘inclusivity’ rather, it dilutes the autonomy of an already underrepresented community in India’s institutional framework. The Sachar Committee Report (2006),presents compelling evidence of the abysmal socio-economic status and severe underrepresentation of Muslims in public institutions.In contrast, non-Muslim charitable institutions actively prohibit Muslim participation in their religious affairs, highlighting the discriminatory impact of this amendment.
   APCR Petition to the Supreme Court

   The petition points to examples of Hindu endowment institutions in states like Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, karnataka, and Tamil Nadu, where only Hindus are permitted to be members. They argue that targeting waqf institutions while such restrictions exist elsewhere violates principles of neutrality and secular governance.

   Moreover, any forced interference in religious administration risks igniting communal and social unrest, thereby threatening the secular fabric of the Constitution. It is neither justified nor necessary to impose such provisions when no similar demands are being placed on non-Muslim religious institutions. This selective encroachment on minority rights must therefore be struck down in the interest of justice, fairness, and constitutional integrity.
   APCR Petition to the Supreme Court

   This raises complex questions about religious freedom, equal protection under the law, and the role of the state in managing religious affairs. In the U.S, cases involving the separation of church and state, religious expression in public spaces, and the rights of religious minorities are frequently debated, mirroring some of these concerns.

   For instance, the Supreme Court case *Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal employment Opportunity Commission* (2012), dealt with the “ministerial exception,” protecting a religious institution’s freedom to choose its religious leaders without government interference. This case, while different in context, highlights the ongoing tension between religious autonomy and government regulation in the U.S.

3. Omission of ‘Waqf by User’ Doctrine

   The petition challenges the omission of Section 3(r),which provided legal recognition to the “waqf by user” doctrine. This doctrine recognized properties as waqf based on long-standing religious use,even without formal documentation. The petitioners argue that its removal “constitutes a deliberate weakening of the legal recognition granting to waqf properties.”

   This Hon’ble Court has previously acknowledged and validated this doctrine in M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das(The Ayodhya Verdict). The removal of this provision, therefore, represents an attempt to erode the foundational principles protecting Waqf properties and disrupts the delicate balance between religious autonomy and state oversight.
   APCR Petition to the Supreme Court

   The removal of this provision could jeopardize vast tracts of waqf property that have historically served religious and charitable purposes, potentially impacting not only the Muslim community but also other communities who have benefited from these endowments.

   The omission of Section 3(r) from the principal Act is not only contrary to established judicial precedents but also sets a hazardous precedent for the arbitrary exclusion of long-recognized religious rights.Moreover, the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) has acknowledged that the effect of the deleted provision will apply prospectively, accept in cases where disputes already exist. However, this additional proviso opens the floodgates to frivolous litigation, placing an unjust burden on individuals seeking to protect their legitimate rights over Waqf properties. Such an unnecessary amendment encroaches upon rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution, which ensures the protection of property rights.
   APCR Petition to the Supreme Court

4. Exclusion of Disputed Properties

   The petition argues that excluding disputed properties from recognition as waqf will lead to a surge in litigation as individuals and entities challenge existing waqf claims.

   Disputes over waqf properties will arise drastically,leading to prolonged legal battles and uncertainty over religious properties. by excluding government properties, the amendment allows the state to take over lands previously recognized as waqf by user. This could affect mosques, dargahs, graveyards, and religious institutions built on lands now considered “government property.” There is also a risk of arbitrary classification of waqf lands as government property to facilitate acquisition.
   APCR Petition to the Supreme Court

   This provision could undermine the long-standing doctrine by placing additional conditions on recognition, potentially affecting mosques, religious schools, and other institutions built on land now claimed by the government. The petitioners fear that it will result in a systematic decrease in religious and community assets available for the Muslim community.

   historically, waqf properties were resolute by continuous religious use, not by formal deeds or ownership records. this sudden shift in legal interpretation will weaken the waqf system in a nutshell. The Sachar Committee Report (2006) already highlighted the socio-economic disadvantages faced by Muslims. If waqf properties are excluded based on government claims or disputes, it will lead to a systematic decrease in religious and community assets available for the Muslim community.
   APCR Petition to the Supreme Court

Potential Implications and concerns

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the management of religious endowments and the protection of minority rights.The petitioners argue that the amendment violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee religious freedom and the right to manage religious affairs. They contend that the Act constitutes an unconstitutional encroachment upon the religious autonomy of the muslim community.

Here’s a summary of key concerns:

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely hinge on balancing the state’s interest in regulating religious endowments with the constitutional rights of religious minorities. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the ongoing need to protect religious freedom and ensure equal treatment under the law.