The Supreme Court docket on Monday maintained two vital provisions of the WAQF (Modification) Act of 2025, and mentioned the complete legislation may solely stay in “uncommon” instances.
The court docket maintained a provision requiring you to be an Islamic practitioner for 5 years to create a WAQF, even in the event you restrict the variety of non-Muslims on the state WAQF board and the variety of central WAQF councils to 3. The court docket handed the order after listening to petitions filed by a number of opposition events, together with the RJD and AAP. It is a non-aligned celebration such because the YSR Congress Social gathering, and several other Muslim organizations, all of which argue that they violate the constitutional ensures of minority rights. In the meantime, the Centre defended it as a crucial measure to carry accountability and transparency to the administration of WAQF properties.
First launched in 2024 after which despatched to a 31-member parliamentary committee (JPC) led by BJP MP Jagadambika Pal, the legislation has sparked among the intense parliamentary debates lately and has sparked widespread protests throughout the nation. The JPC assembly was additionally a storm as opposition lawmakers boycotted a number of seating. The panel submitting the report led to rage after it allegedly claimed that the amendments proposed by members of the opposition weren’t included into the invoice.
The 2025 Act was launched in Lok Sabah on April 2, with 288 MPs and its allies supporting the invoice, with 232 voted in opposition to it, clearing the Home on the identical day. A day later, it was handed by the Senate after 14 hours of debate, however with a a lot thinner majority. 128 lawmakers voted in favour of the invoice, however 95 voted in opposition to it. President Droupadi Murmu agreed to the invoice in mid-April, and since then the legislation has been notified by many BJP-controlled states, however the opposition-controlled states have resisted its implementation.
What modifications will the invoice carry?
The 2025 Act makes vital amendments to the 1995 WAQF Act. It will strengthen surveillance of the state’s WAQF board, mandate the digitization and GIS mapping of all WAQF properties, present ladies and non-Muslim representations on WAQF boards, and impose strict guidelines for leases or gross sales at present charges. At the moment, there’s a WAQF property price round Rs 88,000 of that are disputed.
Authorities’s place
Defending the necessity to amend the 1995 legislation, the BJP chief informed Lok Sabha.
Amit Shah (Federal House Minister): He mentioned the invoice wouldn’t have a retroactive impact. “It clearly states that the legislation will come into impact as soon as the discover is issued.”
Jagadamika Pal (BJP MP and JPC Chair): Saying that the invoice will not be unconstitutional, “Poor Muslims, Pasmandas and widows will profit from the Triple Taraq Invoice (Muslims).
Kiren Rijiju (Minister of Minority Affairs): He mentioned that the phrases constitutional and unconstitutional shouldn’t be used flippantly, and that no mild ought to be forged on the work of the JPC. “A complete of 284 delegations submitted their opinions and proposals. The 25 state authorities WAQF committees submitted their representatives together with authorized figures, lecturers and group leaders.”
Opposition events objections
The unified Indian bloc is against the invoice, and its leaders have made their arguments.
Gaurav Gogoi (Deputy Congress chief of Lok Sabha): He referred to as the invoice a “assault on the parliament and the Structure.” The federal government has launched the invoice and has 4 vital targets, all focusing on Muslim communities. ”
Asaduddin Owaisi (Hyderabad MP and Aimim Chief): He tore a duplicate of the invoice in protest, saying he violated Article 26 of the Structure. “If the amendments come into impact, solely historical temples will probably be protected, not mosques. I’ll tear this legislation aside. It’s unconstitutional,” he mentioned.
Imran Masood (Congress MP): He questioned the definition of “Muslim observe” by violating non secular freedom, saying that the invoice “fully undermines equal rights.” “What’s your definition? Not all Muslims provide catfish 5 instances. All Muslims do not observe Rosa,” he mentioned.
Different lawmakers from DMK, TMC, AAP, RJD, leftists and YSRCP additionally opposed the invoice.
The invoice was additionally mentioned in Rajya Sabha, the place opposition lawmakers once more referred to as for an modification. Congress, DMK, CPI(M), TMC, RJD, AAP, BRS and YSRCP all opposed the invoice, claiming it will carry management to the centre and undermine minority autonomy.
All amendments have been defeated and the NDA secured the passage of the invoice with the vital assist of the 2 largest allies, the JD(U) and TDP and different NDA companions.
aftermath
The legislation was adopted by a pointy state-level response. Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka Meeting have handed resolutions declaring a declaration that it’s unacceptable to the legislation, however discussions about it have been rejected by Jammu and Kashmir Congress.
In Bihar, the RJD demanded that the JD(U) reverse its assist, whereas Telangana noticed Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) and Aimam organized protests in Hyderabad. In addition they protested the legal guidelines of Delhi, Lucknow, Kolkata, Malapuram and Patna, and Muslim organizations such because the All India Muslim Private Regulation Committee (AIMPLB) and Jamiat Uremaehindu have mobilized the crowds and referred to as for the legislation to be repeated.
By late April, a number of petitions had been filed within the Supreme Court docket by Congress, AAP, RJD, AIMIM, IUML and different teams. The petitioner argued that the legislation violated Articles 25-30 of the Structure, which ensures non secular freedom and the rights of minorities to regulate their establishments. They mentioned strengthening central surveillance, together with non-Muslims on the WAQF board, can be unconstitutional interference with non secular points.
The court docket has heard debates on whether or not central surveillance and non-Muslim representatives violate the constitutional ideas of spiritual autonomy, and whether or not the legislation discriminates in opposition to WAQF establishments in comparison with the protections accessible to temple and church trusts.
