Heated debate in Supreme Court on Waqf Amendment Act: What are the key questions and arguments of both sides?

New Delhi: The hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 in the Supreme Court has reached its peak. On May 22, 2025, a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih reserved its verdict after hearing arguments from both sides. Nearly 100 petitions have been filed in the case, in which petitioners like Asaduddin Owaisi, Amanatullah Khan, and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind have termed the Act as "unconstitutional" and "violating the religious rights of the Muslim community". On the other hand, the central government and six BJP-ruled states have termed this law as one that will enhance transparency and accountability.

Key questions before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court focused on three key issues during the hearing:

1. Future of Waqf by User: Can properties that have been in religious or charitable use for a long time (Waqf by User) be denotified? The court expressed concern that the removal of this provision could affect the status of centuries-old mosques and other Waqf properties.
2. Appointment of non-Muslim members in Waqf Board: Is it constitutional to include non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards? The court asked that if so, will Muslim members be included in Hindu religious trusts?
3. Powers of District Collector: Can the District Collector be given the power to decide whether a property is Waqf or government? The petitioners described it as "against the principles of justice", as it gives the collector the power to decide in favor of his own government.

Arguments by petitioners

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that:

1. Violation of religious freedom: Waqf is an Islamic concept, an act of dedicating property to God. It is an integral part of Islam and should be considered a religious right protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. "Waqf is a donation to God, which is for spiritual benefit. It is different from donations in other religions," Sibal said.
2. Abolition of Waqf by User: The 2025 Act abolished Waqf by User, a centuries-old tradition. Singhvi argued that out of 8 lakh Waqf properties, about 4 lakh are Waqf by User, and abolishing it in one go is "devastating".
3. Issue of non-Muslim members: The petitioners argued that the appointment of non-Muslims to the Waqf Board is interference in religious matters, which violates Article 26. "Will the government appoint non-Hindus to the boards of Hindu temples?" asked Sibal.
4. Powers of district collector: Sibal said giving the collector the power to decide the status of a waqf property is a violation of the principle of "nemo judex in sua causa" (no one can be a judge in his own case). The provision is a "veiled attempt" to take waqf properties under government control.
5. Five-year condition: The condition in the Act that only a person practising Islam for five years can create a waqf was called an attack on religious freedom by the petitioners. "Will the government decide how much of a Muslim I am?" asked Sibal.

Central government's arguments

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, presented the following arguments:

1. Waqf is secular, not religious: Mehta argued that waqf is not an integral part of Islam but it is an endowment, which exists in all religions. "There is also the concept of endowment in Hindus and service in Sikhs," he said. The government says waqf boards perform secular functions, such as managing madrassas and orphanages, so the appointment of non-Muslim members is justified.
2. Misuse of waqf by-users: The government claimed there was a 116% increase in waqf properties after 2013, indicating "illegal encroachment". Mehta said it is mandatory to register waqf by-users, and the new law will make it more transparent.
3. Impartiality of district collector: Mehta argued that an inquiry by the collector would be impartial, as even in tax laws, government officials take decisions. He said it is only a matter of correcting revenue records, not affecting property rights.
4. Constitutional validity: The government insisted that the Act is valid under the Concurrent List of the Constitution and is designed to enhance transparency and accountability. Mehta said the court must have solid grounds to strike down a law passed by Parliament.

Court observations and interim relief

The Supreme Court made several important observations:

• Chief Justice Gavai said, "Hindus have the concept of salvation and Christians have heaven. Charity is a fundamental principle of all religions."
• The court expressed concern over abolishing waqf by user, especially for mosques that do not have centuries-old documents. Former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna said, "Abolishing waqf by user can have serious consequences."
• On April 17, the court recorded the Centre's assurance that till the next hearing (May 5), Waqf by-user properties will not be denotified and there will be no new appointments to the Waqf Board.

Social and political reactions

The case has sparked intense debate across the country. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee called the Act "atrocities" and linked the communal violence in Murshidabad to the BJP and central agencies. Congress leader K.C. Venugopal called it an "assault on constitutional rights". On the other hand, BJP MP Jagdambika Pal said that since the Waqf Board is an administrative body, there is no problem in appointing non-Muslim members.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's hearing on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is bringing questions of India's secularism and religious freedom to the centre stage. The petitioners are calling it an attack on the rights of the Muslim community, while the government is calling it a move for reform and transparency. The court's final verdict will not only impact the future of waqf properties, but will also define the balance between management of religious institutions and government intervention in India