IUML Moves Supreme Court: Challenges Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 as 'Unconstitutional Assault on Religious Autonomy'

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has filed a significant petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The party alleges that these amendments fundamentally alter how Waqf properties are governed—stripping communities of their say, centralising control, and violating the basic principles of justice and equality embedded in the Constitution.

Here’s why this case could reshape the legal landscape for religious property in India.

What Is the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025?

Waqf properties are religious endowments, typically used to fund mosques, educational institutions, orphanages, and other charitable causes in the Muslim community. They’re overseen by state and central Waqf boards under the framework of the Waqf Act, 1995.

The 2025 Amendment introduced sweeping changes. Some key provisions now:

• Authorise government officials to take over or manage Waqf properties.

• Empower the Central Waqf Council to override decisions made by state Waqf Boards.

• Allow for a more centralised decision-making structure, reducing community participation.

IUML contends that these new powers violate several constitutional guarantees and change the nature of Waqf institutions from community-driven trusts to bureaucratic entities.

IUML’s Constitutional Argument: What’s At Stake?

The petition claims the 2025 amendments are in direct violation of several fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution:

1. Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality)

The party argues that the amendments single out Muslim religious institutions for an unequal and excessive degree of state interference. Other religious communities continue to enjoy greater autonomy over their places of worship and charitable endowments. According to IUML, this selective intrusion amounts to discrimination.

2. Infringement of Article 25 and 26 (Freedom of Religion)

Articles 25 and 26 protect not only the right to practise one’s religion but also the right of religious communities to manage their own affairs. IUML claims the new law infringes on these rights by allowing the government to interfere in the administration and use of Waqf property—a domain traditionally managed by the Muslim community.

3. Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity)

IUML takes a broader view of Article 21, arguing that control over religious and charitable institutions is essential for the dignity of religious minorities. The state’s power to seize or manage these properties, they say, strips the community of its self-governance and cultural identity.

Is Waqf Property Private or Public?

At the centre of this debate is a crucial legal question: Is Waqf property a private religious endowment or public property subject to state control?

The Supreme Court in R.M. Sahani v. Union of India (2020) held that while Waqf property is meant for public use within the community, it still retains its character as a religious endowment. Thus, it deserves constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26. IUML is relying heavily on this precedent to argue that the state has limited authority over such properties.

The Bigger Picture: Rising Centralisation?

Legal experts note that the 2025 amendments are part of a broader trend of increased central oversight in areas historically managed by religious or regional bodies. Whether it’s through education, religious boards, or now Waqf properties, many believe that this pattern risks upsetting the federal balance.

By giving the Central Waqf Council overriding powers, the amendment potentially weakens state autonomy and the diversity of practices that exist across India’s Muslim communities. Critics worry that it might lead to a uniform, bureaucratic system that fails to consider local customs or needs.

Why This Case Matters to Everyone—Not Just Muslims

Though the immediate impact is on Muslim endowments, this case touches on broader themes relevant to all Indians:

• How much power should the government have over religious institutions?

• Where should the line be drawn between regulation and interference?

• Can a secular state selectively target one community’s institutions for control?

A judgment in this case could set a precedent on how religious institutions across all faiths are treated. If the court upholds the amendments, similar mechanisms could be used to oversee Hindu temples, Christian churches, or Sikh gurdwaras.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre, seeking its response to IUML’s petition. A constitutional bench is expected to take up the matter, given the implications for fundamental rights.

Meanwhile, Waqf Boards across several states have raised concerns over implementation. Some have argued that the amendments could lead to widespread alienation of Waqf lands, while others worry about political misuse.

Final Thoughts

At the heart of this legal battle is a deeper constitutional question: Can the state override religious autonomy in the name of administrative efficiency or transparency?

The IUML’s challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 is more than a procedural or legal tussle—it’s a test of India’s commitment to religious freedom, equality, and the autonomy of minority communities. As the case unfolds, it will force both the judiciary and the public to re-examine how much control the state should have over religious life in a secular democracy.