Owaisi, Congress MP Contest Waqf Amendment Bill in Supreme Court, Alleging Constitutional Violations
AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi and Congress MP Mohammad Jawed have jointly filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The two parliamentarians contend that the legislation, which has been passed by both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and is awaiting the President’s approval, infringes upon the rights of Muslims and imposes undue limitations on the administration of Waqf assets.
According to a report by IANS, Owaisi’s plea highlights that the bill’s provisions “clearly breach the basic rights of Muslims and the community at large.” In a dramatic gesture of dissent, Owaisi tore a physical copy of the bill during the parliamentary session, echoing Mahatma Gandhi’s symbolic protest against unjust laws in South Africa. He remarked, “Just as Gandhi refused to accept laws that defied his conscience, I too reject this one—it is unconstitutional and divisive.”
During the parliamentary debate, Owaisi criticized the ruling government, alleging that it is fostering division by politicizing places of worship. He urged lawmakers to consider his proposed amendments, saying, “I condemn this bill and request that the House accept the ten modifications I have suggested.”
Congress MP Mohammad Jawed also submitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) asserting the bill’s unconstitutionality. Speaking to ANI, he said, “Numerous individuals and political groups plan to challenge this in court. Across Parliament, opposition voices agreed that this bill violates constitutional norms. It unfairly targets a religious institution while extending freedoms to others. Just because the government holds a majority doesn’t give them carte blanche to push through arbitrary legislation.”
Jawed, who represents Kishanganj in Bihar and serves on the Joint Parliamentary Committee that reviewed the bill, filed the petition through advocate Anas Tanwir. Owaisi’s petition was submitted by lawyer Lzafeer Ahmad.
The Congress MP’s petition argues that the amendment discriminates against Muslims by creating burdens not applied to other religious endowments. One major point of contention is a new clause that limits the establishment of Waqfs based on the duration of religious practice—something the petition says has no foundation in Islamic tradition or precedent.
“This condition violates Article 25, which protects the right to freely practice religion,” the petition states. It also highlights that this measure disproportionately impacts recent converts to Islam, preventing them from dedicating property for religious or charitable use—a direct violation of Article 15, which forbids discrimination based on religion or origin.
Another objection is the mandated inclusion of non-Muslim members on the Waqf Board and Central Waqf Council. The plea contends that this represents unwarranted state intrusion into a religious body, pointing out that Hindu religious trusts are managed exclusively by Hindus under most state laws. This unequal treatment, the petition claims, violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the bill proposes giving district collectors the authority to oversee Waqf properties—duties currently held by the Waqf Board. Petitioners argue that this undermines institutional independence and breaches Article 26(d), which grants religious denominations the autonomy to manage their internal affairs.
Changes to the makeup and authority of Waqf tribunals have also drawn criticism. The amendments reduce the involvement of individuals knowledgeable in Islamic jurisprudence, potentially weakening the resolution process of Waqf-related legal issues. According to the plea, this could discourage legal recourse within the Muslim community and place it at a disadvantage compared to other religious groups.
Jawed’s petition further argues that the bill infringes on property rights guaranteed under Article 300A by expanding government control over religious endowments and restricting private property dedication for religious objectives.
Citing a 1954 Supreme Court ruling, the petition asserts that subjecting religious assets to secular oversight violates both spiritual and ownership rights. Additionally, it criticizes the bill’s omission of the “Waqf-by-user” doctrine—a principle upheld by the court in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, which recognizes long-standing religious use as sufficient for a property to be considered Waqf.
The Lok Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025 during a late-night session on April 3, with 288 in support and 232 against. The Rajya Sabha approved it with 128 votes in favour and 95 opposing.
BJP Responds: ‘Let Them Challenge It Legally, But Avoid Inciting Tensions’
In response, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) defended the legislation, urging opposition leaders not to inflame sentiments within the minority community. The party stated that while the opposition is welcome to challenge the bill legally, politicizing it for electoral gains is unwarranted.
Speaking to media at Parliament, senior BJP leader and former Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said, “They are free to approach the courts—no one is stopping them. They did the same with triple talaq, Article 370, and the Ram temple. The Waqf Bill is well within the constitutional framework.”
Prasad emphasized that the Constitution authorizes the government to enact laws for the benefit of marginalized groups, including Muslim women. “This bill is for the welfare of the Muslim community,” he said, accusing opposition parties of exploiting sensitive issues for vote-bank politics.
Echoing this sentiment, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Dinesh Sharma criticized the opposition for stirring unrest. “Once Parliament passes a bill, it is the duty of all parties to respect it. If the opposition wants to protest or go to court, that’s their right—but they must refrain from divisive politics,” he said.