AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi has formally approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, making him the second prominent political figure to do so after Congress MP Mohammad Jawed. The legal challenge comes amidst growing concerns from sections of the Muslim community and political opposition, who view the legislation as an overreach by the state into religious and community affairs.
Owaisi, who represents Hyderabad in the Lok Sabha, has consistently been one of the most outspoken critics of the bill, both inside Parliament and in public discourse. His petition contends that the amended law is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violates several fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution — particularly those that safeguard religious freedom, equality, minority rights, and property rights.
His fierce opposition to the legislation was evident during the recent parliamentary session, where he tore a copy of the bill during a heated debate, denouncing it as an attack on Islamic faith, customs, and religious endowments. He called the law a “blatant attempt to control and dilute the autonomy of Muslim institutions,” likening his protest to acts of civil disobedience pioneered by Mahatma Gandhi during the colonial era.
Congress MP Mohammad Jawed, who represents Kishanganj, Bihar — one of the few Muslim-majority constituencies in India — was the first to move the Supreme Court against the law. His petition offers a comprehensive legal critique of the bill, stating that it violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 25 (Freedom of Religion), 26 (Management of Religious Affairs), 29 (Protection of Interests of Minorities) and 300A (Right to Property). Jawed also served as a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) that had examined the bill, giving him direct insight into its drafting and intent.
The petition argues that the Waqf (Amendment) Act imposes unprecedented restrictions and state interference in Muslim religious endowments, which are not mirrored in the legal frameworks governing other religious communities, such as Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, or Christians. For example, the law mandates increased state oversight, stricter audits, and greater control over the management of Waqf properties — measures that are not imposed on Hindu or Sikh religious trusts, which largely continue to enjoy self-governance. This unequal treatment, according to the petitioners, amounts to discriminatory governance and violates the principle of secularism.
A particularly contentious provision in the amendment is the clause that restricts the creation of new Waqf properties unless there is a demonstrable historical continuity of religious practice. Critics argue that this has no precedent in Islamic jurisprudence and effectively bars recent converts or new Muslim communities from dedicating property for religious or charitable purposes. This restriction, the petition argues, disproportionately affects marginalized groups within the Muslim community and directly infringes upon Article 25, which guarantees the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate one’s religion.
Additionally, both Owaisi and Jawed object to the revised composition of the Waqf Board and Central Waqf Council, which now allows for the inclusion of non-Muslim members. This, they argue, represents an unprecedented intrusion into the administration of a religious body and contrasts sharply with the governance of Hindu religious institutions, which are managed solely by members of that faith. The petition calls this a form of “selective intervention” that could set a dangerous precedent for the governance of all religious institutions in India.
The petition also raises alarms over the implications for property rights, particularly under Article 300A, noting that the new rules could lead to the declassification or confiscation of Waqf lands, potentially affecting thousands of mosques, dargahs, graveyards, and other community assets. Such changes, it argues, threaten the historical and spiritual heritage of Indian Muslims.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these petitions could set the stage for a landmark legal battle on the intersection of religion, state power, and constitutional rights. For many, the outcome may also shape the broader narrative on minority rights, religious autonomy, and secularism in India’s legal and political systems.
As the issue gains national attention, civil society groups, minority organizations, and legal scholars have begun to weigh in, warning that the amendment could be part of a larger pattern of centralized control over religious institutions. Several public interest litigations (PILs) are also reportedly being prepared, and it is likely that the case will attract amicus briefs and interventions from across the legal and academic spectrum.
In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether it will form a constitutional bench to examine the wide-ranging implications of the Waqf (Amendment) Act. Until then, the petition by Owaisi — backed by Jawed’s earlier move — stands as a critical legal challenge to a law that has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over religious freedoms and state overreach in contemporary India.
