Laws that affect religious rights and property ownership often spark strong debates, and the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 is no exception. Hours after it was passed by Parliament, Congress MP Mohammed Jawed took a bold step and challenged the law in the Supreme Court. He believes this amendment imposes unfair restrictions on Waqf properties, undermining the religious and property rights of the Muslim community.

A Battle for Religious Autonomy

Mohammed Jawed, a Lok Sabha MP from Kishanganj, Bihar, was part of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that reviewed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill. However, he strongly opposes the changes, arguing that they unfairly expand government control over Waqf properties. According to his petition, the new law limits the ability of individuals to dedicate property for religious purposes, which goes against fundamental rights protected by the Indian Constitution.

The core of his argument is that the bill violates Article 300A, which safeguards property rights, and contradicts past Supreme Court rulings that prevent secular authorities from controlling religious properties. He also points out that these amendments impose stricter rules on Waqf properties while allowing Hindu and Sikh religious trusts more self-governance, creating an unfair imbalance.

A Threat to Equality and Religious Freedom?

Mohammed Jawed’s petition highlights that the Waqf (Amendment) Bill violates Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. By introducing rules that specifically target Waqf properties while leaving other religious endowments unaffected, the law appears discriminatory. Furthermore, he argues that the bill infringes upon Article 25, which ensures the right to freely profess and practice religion. One of the most controversial aspects of the amendment is a restriction on creating new Waqfs based on how long someone has been practicing Islam. This rule, he argues, is not rooted in Islamic law or tradition and unfairly discriminates against recent converts who wish to dedicate property for religious or charitable purposes. This, he claims, also violates Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on religious grounds.

A Clash Over Historical Religious Properties

Another major concern raised in the petition is the removal of the Waqf-by-User principle. This legal concept, previously upheld by the Supreme Court, recognizes properties as Waqf if they have been used for religious purposes over a long period. By eliminating this provision, the new law limits the Waqf Tribunal’s ability to acknowledge such properties, effectively taking away a well-established right of the community. The petition claims that this goes against Article 26, which grants religious communities the right to manage their affairs. If the law is implemented in its current form, it could result in several historically significant religious properties losing their Waqf status.

Concerns Over Government Interference

One of the most controversial changes introduced by the amendment is the restructuring of the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council. The new law mandates the inclusion of non-Muslim members in these bodies, a move that Jawed believes is an unnecessary government intrusion into religious affairs. He argues that Hindu religious endowments are managed exclusively by Hindus, and the same standard should apply to Waqf properties. Additionally, the amendment gives district collectors—who are government officials—the power to decide the nature of Waqf properties, a responsibility that was previously handled by the Waqf Board. Critics believe this shift weakens the autonomy of Waqf institutions and allows excessive state intervention in religious matters.

Changes to Dispute Resolution Raise Eyebrows

Another aspect of the bill that has drawn criticism is the alteration of the Waqf Tribunal’s composition and powers. The new law reduces the number of individuals with expertise in Islamic law on the tribunal, potentially affecting how disputes over Waqf properties are settled. Jawed believes that this move will make it harder for the Muslim community to seek fair resolutions to their legal issues related to Waqf assets.

What Happens Next?

With this petition now before the Supreme Court, the fate of the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025, hangs in the balance. The court will have to decide whether the amendments align with constitutional principles or if they infringe upon the rights of a religious community.

For now, the debate rages on. While the government argues that the bill is necessary for better regulation, critics like Mohammed Jawed believe it unfairly targets Waqf institutions and limits religious freedom. The Supreme Court verdict will not only determine the future of this law but could also set a significant precedent for religious and property rights in India.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not intend to express any political or legal bias. The opinions and claims mentioned are based on the petition filed in the Supreme Court and ongoing public discussions surrounding the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025.

Also Read:

What is Tort Law: Legal Concepts and Practical Examples 

Evolution and Scope of Administrative Law

Supreme Court Slams Overpriced Lawyers: Justice Must Be Accessible to All