Editorial: Waqf Amendment Act, judicial review raises hope
The Supreme Court, by flagging key issues, strikes a delicate balance between addressing the concerns of Muslim community and the need to carry out genuinely beneficial reforms
By flagging key issues in the contentious Waqf Amendment Act, the Supreme Court has sought to strike a delicate balance between addressing the concerns of the Muslim community and the need to carry out genuinely beneficial reforms. The judicial review has raised hopes that certain controversial provisions of the legislation may be eventually barred from implementation. These include denotification of the ‘waqf-by-user’, representation of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards and the powers of the Collector to change the status of disputed waqf land. In fact, the apex court has extracted an assurance from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the central government would put on hold certain provisions — appointments to the Central Waqf Council or the State Waqf Boards and de-notifying properties previously declared as waqf by courts — till the next hearing on May 5. A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan has rightly directed the government to maintain the status quo on these provisions till the next hearing. Most significant among them is the clause that allows non-Muslims to be appointed as members of the Waqf Boards. The court wondered whether the same yardstick would be used in the case of Hindu religious trusts to allow Muslims to be made part of them. The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, received Presidential assent on April 5 after being passed by both Houses of Parliament amid heated debate. As many as 72 petitions have been filed in the courts challenging the Act.
Critics argue that the new Act, introduced in the name of reforms, is a regressive measure that undermines constitutional guarantees, religious autonomy and established judicial principles that protect minority rights. It is a striking example of legislative overreach disguised as administrative efficiency. At the heart of the public protests against the Act is the growing suspicion over the powers granted to Waqf Boards, especially regarding land registration and ownership. Protesters argue that the amended Act allows sweeping control over properties without adequate safeguards or consultation. This perception has stoked fears of land encroachment and demographic manipulation — narratives that political actors are quick to exploit. Another area of concern is the provision for the appointment of non-Muslims on Waqf Boards, which are essentially mandated to run properties donated by the faithful to causes sanctioned by Islam. The petitioners have contended that the Act violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution that guarantee not only the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion but also the right to self-manage religious affairs. The new law seeks to do away with the concept of Waqf-by-user. Waqf-by-user is land used for Muslim religious or charitable purposes for a long period of time — it is deemed to be a waqf even if it was not registered as such. This could potentially raise questions on the status of several such waqf properties.
