Supreme Court Hears Challenges to Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 Amid Concerns Over Constitutional Validity

 New Delhi, — The Supreme Court on Wednesday commenced hearings on a series of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, with the matter drawing significant legal and public attention.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Augustine George Masih heard arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners. Sibal contended that the new legislation amounted to an unconstitutional encroachment on private property under the guise of waqf regulation.

“This is not a law to protect waqf properties—it is a legislative mechanism designed to take over private assets in the name of waqf,” Sibal argued. He asserted that the Act infringes upon Articles 14 (equality before the law), 25 (freedom of religion), and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution.

Highlighting the personal nature of waqf declarations, Sibal stated, “The essence of waqf is that I voluntarily dedicate my property for religious or charitable purposes. This Act, however, enables the government to confiscate personal property through legislative fiat.”

One of the key concerns raised during the hearing involved provisions requiring individuals to prove their status as practising Muslims in order to contest waqf-related claims—a condition the petitioners described as discriminatory and unconstitutional. “Why must I prove my faith to defend my rights?” one petitioner’s counsel asked.

Responding to the arguments, CJI Gavai emphasized the judiciary’s cautious approach when reviewing legislative enactments. “The presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of a statute,” the Chief Justice remarked. “Unless a very strong case is presented, the court does not ordinarily intervene.”

CJI Gavai also acknowledged the complexity and volume of disputes surrounding waqf properties, particularly in regions such as Aurangabad, which have been at the center of numerous legal battles over waqf status.

In an earlier hearing on May 20, the court had indicated its willingness to consider interim directions on three specific areas:

• The power to denotify properties already declared as waqf by judicial orders
  
  
• The distinction between waqf-by-user and waqf-by-deed
  
  
• Protection of private property potentially absorbed under waqf jurisdiction

However, the bench had categorically stated that it would not entertain requests for an interim stay on provisions of the repealed Waqf Act of 1995 at that stage.

As proceedings continue, legal experts and civil rights advocates alike are watching the case closely, as its outcome could set a precedent on religious endowments, property rights, and the limits of state power in religious matters.