As India’s Supreme Court deliberates on the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the case has evolved into more than just a legal dispute—it has become a defining test of how modern governance engages with religious institutions, community identity, and the balance of rights under a secular constitution.
Over three intense days of hearings, the courtroom witnessed arguments that went far beyond procedural law. Petitioners, legal veterans, and government representatives engaged in heated debates concerning the intersection of religion, legality, and state regulation. The verdict, now reserved on May 22, 2025, could reshape the framework that governs one of the largest religious endowment systems in the world.
What is the Waqf Amendment Proposes
The 2025 amendment introduced several critical changes to the Waqf Act:
- It eliminated the “waqf by user” concept, meaning that property used for religious purposes over a long period can no longer automatically be considered waqf.
- It requires individuals to be practicing Muslims for at least five years to be eligible to dedicate property as waqf.
- It opens the possibility of including non-Muslims on state waqf boards.
- It prohibits waqf creation on land owned by Scheduled Tribes.
Each of these provisions has raised serious constitutional and community concerns.
A Tension Between Tradition and Documentation
One of the central issues is the end of “waqf by user”—a principle historically used to recognize places of worship or religious service, even without formal registration. The petitioners argue that this change effectively erases the lived history of communities where formal documentation wasn’t always possible or prioritized.
Senior advocates argued that it was often the government’s own failure—such as delayed surveys or lack of proactive registration drives—that left many properties in limbo. Now, by discarding the user-based approach, the Act, they say, punishes the community for these systemic failures.
The State’s position is rooted in administrative reform. It maintains that formal documentation is essential to avoid fraudulent claims and ensure transparent use of religious property. Given the scale of waqf assets in India—ranging in the thousands of crores—oversight is a legitimate concern. But critics caution that administrative convenience cannot override historical rights or cultural continuity.
Faith on Trial: The Practicing Muslim Clause
Another major flashpoint is the clause that allows only those who have been practicing Muslims for five years to create a waqf. Critics argue this introduces a subjective and exclusionary religious test. In a secular state, they say, no faith group should have to prove the intensity or duration of their belief to exercise religious or charitable rights.
The government’s counterargument rests on the premise that waqf, being a purely Islamic institution, must be guarded from being misused by outsiders or non-believers. This, it claims, is not discriminatory but protective.
Yet, the broader concern remains: if the state begins to define who qualifies as a ‘true believer,’ does it not cross a line into regulating religious conscience?
Is It Fair to Add Non-Muslims to Waqf Boards?
The amendment’s provision to include non-Muslims on waqf boards was also scrutinized by the bench. Petitioners contended that the measure dilutes the community’s autonomy over its religious affairs and asked why similar inclusion isn’t enforced in Hindu religious trusts or church bodies.
The justices appeared to share this concern, probing whether there was a double standard at play. The debate reflects a larger question in Indian governance: Can diversity in administration be enforced in only one direction, or must it be uniformly applied across faiths?
Helping Tribes or Hurting Religions?
A lesser-discussed but equally important section of the amendment bars the creation of waqf on tribal lands. The rationale, according to the government, is to prevent alienation of land from indigenous communities.
Yet, opponents argue this provision unfairly singles out Muslim charitable practices. Why should only waqf be excluded when tribal land laws already prohibit all forms of land transfer? Isn’t this a duplication of restrictions that risks targeting one group over others?
The Larger Constitutional Question
At its core, this case is about balancing rights. Article 26 allows every religious group to manage its own religious matters, while the government can step in only for public order, health, or morality.
But where does regulation end and interference begin?
If the state claims the authority to dictate who can dedicate property to a religious cause or who can manage it, then it may be edging too close to intruding upon constitutionally protected freedoms.
Why This Case Matters
The Supreme Court’s reserved judgment on May 22, 2025, is not merely a legal bookmark. Its ruling will shape how Indian democracy handles the sensitive space where law and faith collide.
If it validates the amendment in full, the ruling may set a precedent for stronger state intervention in religious institutions. If it strikes down contentious sections, it could affirm minority rights and autonomy in a meaningful way.
Either way, the implications go beyond the Muslim community. Other religious groups, especially those managing charitable or temple trusts, will closely watch the fallout. The verdict will likely ripple across India’s pluralistic fabric, influencing debates on religious rights, secular governance, and administrative reform.
Final Thoughts
What makes this moment pivotal is not just the legal complexity but the philosophical challenge it poses: Can a modern state bring efficiency to religious charity without losing sight of tradition and trust? Can oversight be exercised without overreach?
The Supreme Court now holds the answer. Its eventual judgment will be a litmus test for how India negotiates its dual identity—as a democracy committed both to reform and to the freedom of faith.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025?
It is a law that reforms waqf property regulations, emphasizing formal registration, stricter eligibility, and digital governance.
Why is the amendment being challenged in the Supreme Court?
Petitioners argue it violates constitutional rights by restricting religious freedoms and community control.
What is “waqf by user,” and why is its removal controversial?
“Waqf by user” recognizes religious use over time; critics say its removal erases historical claims.
Why is the practicing-Muslim clause disputed?
It is seen as discriminatory for requiring five years of religious practice to dedicate waqf property.
When will the Supreme Court decide the case?
The Court has reserved its verdict after hearings concluded in May 2025; a decision is expected soon.
