 |
|
The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has approached the Supreme Court of India, filing a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. This action adds to a growing list of legal challenges against the Act, with the IUML arguing that it violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. The core of the IUML's argument rests on the assertion that the Act constitutes an "unconstitutional assault on the religious autonomy and personal rights of the Muslim community in India." The petition alleges that the Amendment Act imposes arbitrary restrictions and significantly enhances state control over Islamic religious endowments, thereby fundamentally deviating from the religious essence and established principles of Waqf. The IUML's move underscores the deep concerns within the Muslim community regarding the potential impact of the 2025 Act on their religious practices and the management of Waqf properties across the country. The immediate enforcement of the Act, according to the petition, poses a significant risk of causing immense and irreparable loss to Waqf properties nationwide, eroding constitutionally guaranteed religious rights, and creating severe legal uncertainty. The IUML seeks the Supreme Court's intervention to strike down the challenged provisions of the Amendment Act as unconstitutional and to restore the corresponding safeguards that were previously in place under the Waqf Act of 1995. Furthermore, the petition calls for an interim stay of the Amendment Act to prevent its implementation while the court adjudicates the matter, thereby mitigating the potential for immediate and irreversible harm. The challenge focuses on several key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. First, Section 2 of the Act, which replaces the term "Waqf" with "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development," is criticized for diluting the inherently religious identity of Waqf. The IUML contends that this alteration shifts the focus from the religious purpose of the endowment to a more bureaucratic and secular management framework, potentially undermining the original intent of Waqf founders. Second, Section 2A introduces a new proviso exempting trusts established by Muslims for purposes similar to Waqf from the Act's purview, regardless of whether they are statutorily regulated or subject to court judgments. The IUML argues that this provision creates an unwarranted distinction between Waqfs and similar trusts, potentially leading to inconsistencies in legal treatment and management practices. Moreover, the absence of such a provision in the Waqf Act of 1995 further highlights the discriminatory nature of this amendment. Third, Section 3 (ix) (a) modifies Section 3 (r) of the 1995 Act by imposing arbitrary restrictions on the right of individuals to create a Waqf. Specifically, the amendment stipulates that only Muslims who can demonstrate that they have been practicing Islam for at least five years are eligible to create a Waqf. Additionally, it excludes new converts and non-Muslims from creating Waqfs, which the IUML argues is in direct contravention of established Islamic Law and practice. The amendment also adds the condition that properties can only be dedicated to Waqf if "there is no contrivance involved in the dedication of such property," a requirement deemed arbitrary and potentially subjective. Fourth, Section 3(ix)(b) eliminates the practice of "Waqf by User," a provision previously recognized under Section 3 (i) of the 1995 Act. The IUML contends that this omission effectively negates centuries-old undocumented Waqfs that have been established and maintained through customary usage. The overall effect of these amendments, according to the IUML, is to restrict established religious practices, such as Oral Waqfs and Waqf by User, and to impose arbitrary and humiliating conditions on individuals seeking to create Waqfs, conditions that are not mandated by Shari'ah. The IUML cites the Supreme Court's ruling in Church of God v. K.K.R. Majestic [(2000) 7 SCC 282], which held that faith-based acts do not require a duration test, to further support its argument that the Amendment Act violates the freedom of religion. Fifth, Section 4 adds Section 3C to the 1995 Act, declaring government-claimed properties as non-Waqf property. The IUML argues that this provision empowers Collectors to arbitrarily decide disputes without providing any mechanism for appeal, potentially leading to the unjust deprivation of Waqf properties. Additionally, Section 4 adds Section 3B to the Principal Act, imposing an unnecessary and arbitrary condition requiring the filing of Waqf details that have already been registered within an extremely short period of six months, a condition that could potentially lead to the removal of Wakfs already registered under the Act. Sixth, Sections 9 and 11 mandate the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Councils and Waqf Boards, which the IUML argues infringes on the autonomy of Muslims to administer their religious affairs and properties. The IUML contends that this is a grave violation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to freedom of religion and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs. The IUML further argues that the arbitrary distinctions created by the Amendment Act, such as the inclusion of non-Muslims in the management of Waqf but not in the management of other faiths' religious affairs, and the impractical provisions, such as the six-month digitization requirement and reliance on Collector expertise, lack a rational basis and are prima facie discriminatory against Muslims. The addition of arbitrary, humiliating, and derogatory conditions, such as requiring individuals to "show or demonstrate" that they are practicing Muslims in order to create Waqfs, is also criticized as paving the way for further discrimination and segregation against Muslims, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The IUML emphasizes that Waqf is an Islamic concept and a property dedicated to Allah for charitable or religious purposes, and that the Amendment Act's provision for management by non-Muslims violates the rights of Muslims to practice their religion and administer their affairs as guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Seventh, Section 14 omits Section 20A of the 1995 Act, removing the provision that gave the right to move a no-confidence motion against the Chairperson, which the IUML argues undermines the democratic governance of Waqf Boards. Eighth, Section 18(a) mandates written deeds, abolishing oral Waqfs, which the IUML contends is against Islamic Law and principles and violates Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 of the Constitution. Ninth, Section 18(d) grants unfettered power to the Collector to decide whether a property can be registered as a Waqf without any mechanism for appeal, which the IUML argues is biased and violates the principles of natural justice and the basic structure of the Constitution. Tenth, Section 18(f) imposes an embargo of six months on filing suits, appeals, or other legal proceedings for the enforcement of any right on behalf of any Waqf that has not been registered as per the Amendment Act, which the IUML argues is an arbitrary and unnecessary restriction on the rights of individuals to file legal proceedings. Eleventh, Section 20 omits Section 40 of the 1995 Act, stripping Boards of the power to determine Waqf status, which the IUML argues is discriminatory since other religious endowments enjoy finality of order that has been taken away from Wakf Boards. Twelfth, Section 40A applies the Limitation Act to Section 107 of the 1995 Act, threatening the perpetual status of Waqf as mandated in Islamic Law and encouraging encroachers upon Waqf properties. Thirteenth, Section 41 omits Sections 108 (good-faith protection) and 108A (overriding effect) from the 1995 Act, further weakening the protections afforded to Waqf properties. The IUML concludes that the Amendment Act arbitrarily enhances state control by granting powers regarding registration of Waqfs to officers above the rank of Collector, calling for the addition of non-Muslim members to Waqf Boards and Council, and usurping the Fundamental Rights of management of religious affairs away from the Muslim Community. The IUML further contends that these amendments are in sharp contrast to the autonomy enjoyed by every other community to manage their affairs as mandated under Article 26 of the Constitution, citing examples such as the Hindus (Guruvayoor Devaswom Act) and Sikhs (Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee) endowments. These amendments also allegedly contradict the Sachar Committee Report's call for management to rest within the community. The IUML's petition to the Supreme Court is a significant challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, raising fundamental questions about the balance between state control and religious autonomy in India. The court's decision will have far-reaching implications for the Muslim community and the management of Waqf properties across the country. The IUML argues that the Act undermines the religious character of Waqf, imposes arbitrary and discriminatory conditions on Muslims, and infringes on their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petition seeks to restore the safeguards provided under the 1995 Act and to ensure that the management of Waqf properties remains within the purview of the Muslim community, in accordance with Islamic Law and the principles of religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution.