Asaduddin Owaisi Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Bill, 2025: Alleges Erosion of Muslim Autonomy Over Religious Affairs

Introduction

In a significant legal challenge, Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament from Hyderabad and President of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), has approached the Supreme Court questioning the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. Owaisi’s writ petition asserts that the amendments introduced in the 2025 legislation infringe upon the rights of the Muslim community to manage its religious institutions, thereby violating multiple fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

At the heart of the petition lies the contention that the amended law strips waqf properties of the constitutional protections earlier extended under Articles 25 and 26, while retaining those safeguards for religious endowments belonging to other faiths. This, Owaisi argues, amounts to targeted discrimination against Muslims and unjustified state interference in their religious affairs.

A Constitutional Conundrum

The petition challenges the Amendment on the grounds of violating several provisions of the Constitution—namely Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), 25 and 26 (freedom of religion), 29 and 30 (cultural and educational rights of minorities), and 300A (right to property).

According to Owaisi, the Amendment represents a departure from the judiciary’s historical approach, which has aimed to strengthen the autonomy of minority religious communities in managing their religious and charitable affairs. Instead, this law allegedly opens the door for greater state control over waqf administration, thereby weakening the institution itself.

Selective Dismantling of Legal Safeguards

One of the central arguments in the petition is that while protections for Hindu, Jain, and Sikh religious and charitable trusts remain intact, similar safeguards for waqf properties have been removed. This, according to Owaisi, constitutes a form of “hostile discrimination” and violates the spirit of secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The petition explicitly challenges a wide swath of clauses—more than 60 in total—from the Amendment Act. These include clauses related to the eligibility criteria for creating waqfs, the recognition of waqfs by usage, the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards, and changes to procedures related to waqf property management and adjudication.

Who Can Create a Waqf?

Among the most contentious provisions of the Amendment are Clauses 3(ix)(a) and 3(ix)(d), which specify that only a practising Muslim of at least five years’ standing is eligible to create a waqf. The petition terms this requirement “arbitrary, vague, and unconstitutional.”

Under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, any Muslim who is competent to contract, as defined under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is eligible to establish a waqf. The new amendment, however, adds a condition not found in the 1937 Act—mandating a minimum period of religious practice. This, the petition argues, unfairly discriminates against recent converts to Islam, denying them the opportunity to seek spiritual merit through property dedication.

Moreover, the petition raises a significant concern about the practical implications of this clause: who decides whether someone has “practised Islam” for five years? Such a determination, Owaisi argues, places a third party in a position to evaluate an individual’s faith, which undermines the right to freely profess and practice one’s religion under Article 25.

Rolling Back Progress on Inclusive Waqf Laws

Historically, even non-Muslims have been permitted to dedicate property for waqf under Islamic law. This inclusivity was enshrined in Section 104 of the Waqf Act, 1995, and further expanded in 2013, when the term “by a person professing Islam” was replaced with “by any person.” The 2025 Amendment, however, omits Section 104 entirely, effectively reversing this progressive development.

The petition argues that this change not only restricts who can create waqfs but also contradicts years of legal evolution that aimed to expand religious freedoms and foster pluralism. When read in tandem with Clause 40, which removes Section 104, the Amendment signals a retraction of rights and protections previously secured by legislation and judicial precedent.

Erosion of the Principle of Waqf by Usage

Another significant issue raised in the petition is the derecognition of the doctrine of waqf by user—a principle rooted in Islamic jurisprudence and acknowledged by Indian courts. This principle allows for the legal recognition of a waqf based on continuous public religious use of a property, even in the absence of formal documentation.

The Supreme Court, in the landmark Ayodhya verdict (M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das), reaffirmed the legitimacy of oral waqf dedications and the concept of waqf by user. By removing recognition of this principle through Clause 3(ix)(b) of the Amendment Act, the new law potentially invalidates countless waqf properties established through traditional practice over centuries.

Owaisi contends that this could expose historical religious sites such as mosques and dargahs to legal challenges and encroachments, in violation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and the constitutional principle of non-retrogression—both of which aim to preserve the religious character of places of worship.

Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Boards

The petition also challenges provisions that allow for the appointment of non-Muslim members to the Central Waqf Council and various State Waqf Boards. This, Owaisi argues, is an affront to the autonomy of the Muslim community in managing institutions and assets dedicated for exclusively Islamic purposes.

He draws upon the precedent established in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, where the Supreme Court held that religious denominations have the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. Allowing non-Muslims to influence the administration of waqfs would amount to an undue encroachment on this right.

A Legal and Political Flashpoint

Owaisi’s petition follows similar concerns raised by several Islamic clerical bodies, including one from Kerala, which has also moved the apex court against the Amendment. The growing opposition to the law suggests that the Amendment Bill could become a major flashpoint in debates over minority rights, religious freedom, and secularism in India.

The case is poised to test the constitutional limits of state intervention in religious affairs and may also set a precedent for how religious institutions across all faiths are governed in the future. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this challenge, legal experts and community leaders alike will be closely watching the proceedings to see whether the judiciary will uphold the existing protections or reinterpret them in light of evolving socio-political dynamics.