The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear a series of petitions today that challenge several provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. The petitioners, including social activists and public figures, argue that certain sections of the law are discriminatory, constitutionally questionable, and grant sweeping powers to Waqf Boards without proper checks and balances.
At the center of the legal storm is the concern that the Act allows the Waqf Boards—bodies established to manage Islamic religious endowments—to claim and manage properties with minimal oversight, often leading to disputes with private individuals or communities. The petitioners are not just questioning the administrative mechanisms under the Act, but the very structure of the law, which they believe creates an imbalance in how religious endowments are handled across different communities in India.
The Waqf Act was enacted in 1995 to provide a uniform framework for the management of properties dedicated to religious or charitable purposes under Islamic traditions. These properties—known as waqf—can include land, buildings, and other assets. The Act empowers state-level Waqf Boards to survey, list, and manage such properties and also allows for Waqf Tribunals to resolve related disputes.
However, those challenging the Act argue that several of its provisions, particularly those dealing with the identification and notification of waqf properties, enable the Boards to claim ownership of land without a fair process. One of the major concerns raised is that individuals or families can find their property suddenly labeled as “waqf” without receiving prior notice or an opportunity to contest the claim in an ordinary civil court. Instead, they are often forced to approach Waqf Tribunals, which the petitioners claim are not always neutral or transparent.
A few sections specifically under fire include Section 4 (which deals with the preliminary survey of waqf properties), Section 5 (publication of waqf property lists), and Section 6 (which limits the ability to challenge waqf declarations in regular courts). Petitioners argue that these clauses violate the constitutional right to equality and the right to property, as they allow for a separate legal track that does not apply to properties of other faiths.
Another point of contention is the lack of a similar administrative and legal setup for properties belonging to other religions. Critics say this creates a dual legal system—one that favors a particular religious group while denying others similar organizational mechanisms for protecting and managing their religious endowments. They’re calling for either a uniform legal structure for all communities or the repeal of provisions that give special treatment to one.
The issue is politically sensitive, touching on debates around secularism, minority rights, and property ownership. While some see the Waqf Boards as vital institutions for protecting historical and religious legacies, others argue that the current legal framework has led to overreach and misuse.
The Supreme Court’s hearing today could become a pivotal moment in this long-standing debate. If the Court finds merit in the arguments against the current provisions, it may direct the legislature to revisit the law. Alternatively, it could reaffirm the current system, which would be seen as a validation of the special protections given to waqf properties under Islamic tradition.
Whatever the outcome, the case has stirred a wider conversation around the need for equitable treatment of all religious communities when it comes to administration and legal protections. The petitions have highlighted a growing demand for legal reforms that uphold both religious freedoms and individual property rights in a balanced manner.
As the hearing unfolds, all eyes will be on how the apex court interprets the fine line between minority rights and constitutional equality—a judgment that could redefine how religious endowments are governed in a secular republic.