New Delhi: Supreme Court Tuesday agreed to consider listing a fresh plea challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar took note of the submissions of advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain that a fresh plea was filed and the same be listed for hearing.
“All matters where mentioning slips are given, we give dates mostly within a week,” the CJI said.
As many as 10 petitions, including the one filed by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi are already listed for hearing April 16 before a three-judge bench comprising the CJI and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan.
The fresh plea, mentioned by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, was filed by Hari Shankar Jain and one Mani Munjal against the Union of India, the Ministry of Minority Affairs, and the Central Waqf Council.
The plea challenges the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 as amended by Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 …as those provisions violate Articles 14, 15, 21, 25,26,27 and 300A of the Constitution of India as it creates an “imbalance and disharmony in the Indian society” by offering “undue advantages” to the Muslim community.
It said the Waqf Boards, through these legal provisions, have gained excessive powers leading to large-scale occupation of government and private lands across the country.
“It is relevant to mention that the public at large in whole of the country is aggrieved from the illegal acts of taking deceitful or forcible possession of the property of individuals and the public properties, have filed more than 120 petitions in different high courts and the same are pending for adjudication,” it said.
Referring to a 2025 parliamentary statement by the Union home minister, it noted a “sharp increase” in Waqf-registered land from 18 lakh acres in 2013 to 39 lakh acres in 2025.
The statement also highlighted concerns over discrepancies in Waqf land records, particularly regarding the disappearance of leased property data, the plea added.
The plea, as a result, sought a declaration that non-Muslims should not be subject to provisions of the Waqf Act and a directions to the Centre to recover “Gram Panchayat and other public lands” recorded as Waqf.
It sought recognition of the right of non-Muslims to challenge Waqf decisions in civil courts and striking off several provisions of the amended law on the ground of being “unconstitutional”.
“It is relevant to mention that after partition in 1947 a large number of Muslim residents migrated to Pakistan. A large number of Hindus migrated to India from the newly-created territory of Pakistan leaving their valuable properties and articles. Parliament enacted Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 making provision to accommodate those migrants coming to India from Pakistan,” it said.
The properties of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan vested in the Government of India, it said.
“The religious character of the properties in possession of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan lost its sanctity and same no longer remained as Waqf or religious property. Therefore, the evacuee properties cannot be considered religious properties and no part of it can be handed over to Waqf boards,” it said.
The plea referred to Section 3(r) of the law which included Shamlat Deh (Gram Panchayat land) within the definition of Waqf land.
It also challenged the validity of Sections 4, 6(1), 7(1), which allegedly do not provide adequate safeguards for public participation or protection of non-Muslim interests.
The plea also challenged Section 8 mandating state expenditure for Waqf land surveys and said this would amount to misuse of public funds.
It also challenged the legality of Section 28 of the Act which allows the Waqf Board to issue binding directions to district magistrates.
The petition also challenged the validity of Section 108 of the Waqf Act (prior to its repeal in 2025), which allowed for the transfer of Evacuee Properties—properties abandoned during Partition—to Waqf Boards.
The petition said this transfer was unconstitutional, violated property rights of displaced Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, and called for the restoration of such properties with the Government.
PTI
