– Arshad Shaikh
The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 has presented Indian Muslims one of its most formidable legal challenges in recent history. The law has been showcased in the garb of reform and administrative efficiency. However, the Act fundamentally alters the management of Waqf properties (Islamic religious endowments), which have historically supported mosques, madrasas, orphanages, graveyards, and welfare institutions. The new law centralises control under the state. It strips Waqf Boards of their constitutionally granted autonomy. It dismantles protections that safeguarded Muslim-owned assets for centuries. What lies ahead is not just a legal fight for land or institutional authority. It is a constitutional struggle to preserve the religious freedom, minority rights, and cultural identity of over 200 million Indian Muslims.
The problem is that the Indian judiciary operates on the principle of presumption of constitutionality. This means that every law passed by Parliament is presumed valid unless proven otherwise. This places a significant burden on petitioners to present airtight, well-researched, and precisely framed legal arguments that demonstrate clear violations of fundamental rights. Furthermore, courts are typically reluctant to grant interim stays on legislation, especially at the early stages, unless the law is blatantly unconstitutional or causes immediate irreparable harm. Filing hastily drafted or emotionally charged petitions may not be effective. On the contrary, they could risk undermining the broader legal case.
Given this complex landscape, the Muslims must adopt a strategic and coordinated legal approach. Coordination and collaboration between legal scholars, civil society, and religious institutions will be essential. Instead of a flurry of disjointed Public Interest Litigations (PILs), what is needed is a consolidated, scholarly, and constitutionally grounded challenge.
Constitutional Violations and How to Address Them in Apex Court
The core legal challenge before Muslims is to prove that the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 is in direct conflict with India’s constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 14, 25, 26, and 30. These provisions preserve the principles of equality before law, religious freedom, institutional autonomy, and minority rights. However, the new amendments completely dismantle these protections.
The Act’s restriction that only Muslims who have practised Islam for five years may create Waqf undermines both equality (Article 14) and religious freedom (Article 25). It arbitrarily discriminates against new converts and hands the state the power to judge the “authenticity” of one’s faith. This is something no inclusive government is constitutionally permitted to do.
Equally troubling is the dismantling of the democratic structure of Waqf Boards and the inclusion of non-Muslims in their functioning. This severely compromises the autonomy of religious denominations, guaranteed under Article 26(b), which allows them to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. By replacing elected representatives with government-appointed bureaucrats, the state not only encroaches upon internal religious administration but also distorts the religious character of these bodies.
Fortunately, as the hearing of the case began in the Supreme Court of India, CJI Sanjiv Khanna asked the government attorney, “Are you suggesting that minorities, including Muslims, should also be included in boards managing Hindu religious institutions? Please state that openly.”
Also, in the hearing the apex court has stayed the de-notification of Waqf properties as “government land” without judicial oversight and the abolition of the “Waqf by user” doctrine. However, it remains to be seen how the case unfolds.
Legal Strategy
Petitioners should avoid vague, emotionally charged claims and instead frame challenges grounded in specific constitutional breaches and precedent-setting judgments – such as Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973), S R Bommai v Union of India (1994), and Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (2018). Expert constitutional lawyers must be engaged to craft well-reasoned petitions under Articles 32 and 226, asking the Court not only to strike down discriminatory provisions but also to reaffirm the constitutional principle that the state cannot interfere in the religious, cultural, and charitable expressions of a minority community. Only then can this legal battle stand a real chance at safeguarding the spirit of India’s pluralistic democracy.
Legal Hurdles: Presumption, Procedure, and the Path to Justice
Challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 in court is not only about raising strong constitutional arguments, it also involves navigating deep-rooted judicial principles that favour legislative authority. One of the biggest hurdles is the presumption of constitutionality. This legal doctrine holds that all laws passed by Parliament are assumed to be valid unless proven otherwise. This means that the burden of proof lies entirely on the petitioners, who must demonstrate that specific provisions of the Act clearly and unambiguously violate constitutional rights. Courts do not invalidate legislation lightly, especially when it pertains to matters involving policy or public administration. Adding to the complexity is the difficulty in securing interim stays. Courts are often reluctant to halt the implementation of a law unless it causes immediate and irreparable harm.
In the case of the Waqf Act, even though multiple petitions are being prepared or filed, poorly drafted or premature applications may backfire by allowing the law to entrench itself while the community loses critical ground. The judiciary prefers a cautious, deliberative approach, especially when the stakes involve constitutional interpretation. Understanding the judicial process and burden of proof is therefore essential.
Once a petition is admitted, the Supreme Court may issue notices to the Union Government and call for counter-arguments. If the case raises significant constitutional questions, it may be referred to a larger Constitution Bench. The Court can then uphold the law, strike it down in full or in part, or read down certain provisions to make them constitutionally compliant.
A Watershed Case
For the Muslim community to succeed, petitioners must be prepared with precedent-based reasoning, clear evidence of discriminatory impact, and a united legal front. The road is steep, but not impossible. A sound strategy, meticulousness, and patience will be critical in seeking justice. This isn’t just about property or management, it’s about the soul of India as a diverse, secular nation. The Waqf Act threatens a core part of Muslim identity and faith, undermining the charity that’s sustained communities for generations. It’s a test of whether India’s Constitution can protect everyone, not just the majority. As Muslims prepare for this legal fight, they’re not just defending Waqf, they are standing up for justice, dignity, and the promise of an inclusive India.
