Waqf Act 1995 challenged in Supreme Court: Centre asked to respond, will the future of Waqf properties change?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Central Government and the states on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Act of 1995. According to a report by India.com on May 27, 2025, a division bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih gave this direction while hearing a petition filed by Delhi resident Nikhil Upadhyay. The petition claims that some provisions of the Waqf Act 1995 violate Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution. The case is clubbed with challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, which has increased the role of the central government in the management of waqf properties. Will this case change the future of waqf properties? Let's look at the facts.

Challenge on Waqf Act 1995

Nikhil Upadhyay's petition states that the Waqf Act 1995 provides special legislation only for charitable properties of the Muslim community, while there is no such uniform law for other religions. According to India.com, the petition challenges Articles 3(r), 4, 5, 6(1), 7(1), 8, 28, 29, 33, 36, 41, 52, 83, 85, 89, 101, which are said to be against the rights to equality and religious freedom of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the definition of waqf, which defines it as a “permanent dedication”, is “administratively and judicially vague”.

Further, the petition claimed that waqf boards have been given unchecked power to declare properties as waqf without public notice or hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice. According to an April 15, 2025 report by India Today, advocate Hari Shankar Jain also filed a similar petition, alleging that the waqf law allows “illegal usurpation” of Hindu and non-Muslim properties.

Supreme Court hearing and Centre’s stand

On May 27, 2025, the Supreme Court heard Nikhil Upadhyay’s petition. According to Live Law, Chief Justice Gavai asked, “Why is a 1995 law being challenged in 2025? There is a delay.” Petitioner's counsel Ashwini Upadhyay argued that the 2013 amendment is also being challenged and the Supreme Court is already hearing petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The court clubbed the petition with an earlier petition by Hari Shankar Jain and sought responses from the Centre and states.

The central government is yet to file a formal reply on this petition, but in the case of the Wakf (Amendment) Act 2025, the Centre had clarified its position. According to the Supreme Court Observer, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in an affidavit filed on April 25, 2025, said that the 2025 amendment has been brought to enhance "transparency and accountability". He argued that since wakf boards perform "secular functions", it is constitutional to include non-Muslim members.

Waqf Amendment 2025 and Controversy

The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 has also raised huge controversy. According to The Hindu, it removed the concept of ‘waqf by user’, provided for the inclusion of non-Muslim members in waqf boards, and increased the regulatory power of the central government. Over 65 petitions challenged it in the Supreme Court, calling it a violation of religious autonomy. According to the Supreme Court Observer, in a hearing on April 16 and 17, 2025, the court gave the Centre a week’s time to file a reply and ordered that no waqf property would be denotified and no new appointments to the boards would be made until then.

Opposition and support

Opposition leaders, such as AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi and Congress MP Mohammad Javed, called the amendment “unconstitutional” and said it was an attack on the religious autonomy of the Muslim community. According to ANI, Owaisi said on April 17, 2025, “Supreme Court made it clear that ‘Waqf by User’ cannot be removed.” On the other hand, six BJP-ruled states—Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Assam—supported the amendment. According to The Indian Express, these states argued that the amendment would prevent misuse of Waqf properties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's hearing on the constitutional validity of the 1995 Waqf Act and seeking a response from the Centre has brought the issue back into the spotlight. The petitioners claim that the law violates the rights to equality and religious freedom, while the Centre has described the 2025 amendment as a move to increase transparency. The final verdict of the court will not only affect the management of Waqf properties but will also have a profound impact on religious autonomy and property rights in India. Will this case give a new shape to the Waqf Act?