The Waqf Amendment Act of 2025 faces continued legal opposition that raises major questions about state control of religious properties along with religious freedom and independence. In response to 73 petitions opposing the new law, the Supreme Court posed its challenge questions to the federal government about various controversial provisions within the act. Three major aspects emerged regarding 'Waqf by user' properties and non-Muslim members on the Central Waqf Council, as well as their wider effects on religious liberties within India.

The Court’s Opening Questions

The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan, opened the hearing by asking two critical questions. First, they sought to understand whether the Supreme Court should refer the petitions to a high court and what the petitioners intended to argue. These questions established the tone for a session that would tackle several layers of legal and constitutional concerns about the new law.

Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, who appeared on behalf of one of the petitioners, contended that several provisions of the Waqf Amendment Act contravene Article 26 of the Constitution. Article 26 ensures freedom to administer religious affairs, a freedom that is being taken away by the new legislation, argued Sibal. Sibal also raised concerns about the powers the law grants to the collector, who, he argued, is a government official and therefore should not be playing the role of a judge in such matters. According to Sibal, this centralisation of power undermines the autonomy of religious institutions.

‘Waqf by User’—A’ Controversial Provision:

One of the main provisions in the Waqf Amendment Act is the doctrine of 'Waqf by user.' It is a property being treated as Waqf (religiously endowed) based on the fact that it has been utilised for religious or charitable purposes in the long run even without a formal document. The new law also has a provision that states that such properties cannot be dealt with as Waqf in case they are under dispute or government properties.

Sibal had raised strong objections to this clause, particularly in instances where the Waqf is several centuries old and does not necessarily have official papers. "The problem is, if a waqf was created 3,000 years ago, they will ask for the deed," he said. he said. This, he said, would result in major hurdles in ascertaining the authenticity of long-standing Waqf properties and create judicial uncertainty.

Senior Counsel Abhishek Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of a petitioner, drew attention to the fact that almost 4 lakhs of the 8 lakhs Waqf properties in India are 'Waqf by user.' These include several historically significant properties, including religious properties like mosques and madrassas, which have remained in continuous use for centuries.

The Chief Justice’s Concerns

Chief Justice Khanna came in to drive home the importance of such issues. "We are told Delhi High Court is built on Waqf land. We are not saying all waqf by the user is wrong, but there is genuine concern, he added. This observation brought out the likelihood of complications arising from the application of the new provisions, particularly in cities where Waqf lands had been utilised for public facilities such as courts and schools.

Singhvi, in reply, requested a stay on some provisions of the act, saying that the matter of Waqf by the user needed to be dealt with in a more subtle fashion. He insisted that a uniform approach towards identifying such properties may create legal anarchy and violate the rights of communities that have been holding these lands for centuries.

The Government’s Defense

Speaking on behalf of the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued the case for the law and said that the law had been enacted after detailed deliberations and debates in Parliament. Mehta added that a joint parliamentary committee had thoroughly examined the law before the two Houses of Parliament had enacted the law.

But Chief Justice Khanna went further in interrogating Mehta on the actual implications of the law with regard to 'Waqf by user' properties. "Are you saying that if a 'Waqf by user' was established by a (court) judgement or otherwise, today it stands void?" asked the Chief Justice, pointing out that numerous historic mosques and places of worship fall under Waqf but do not have any formal documentation as they are very old. Such interrogations were meant to address anxiety regarding the probable invalidation of long-standing religious properties, thus having long-lasting implications for religious communities.

Justice Khanna also alluded to past verdicts, stating that "Waqf by user" is established in court verdicts. He indicated that any attempt to reverse such established traditions would be questionable, particularly in situations where properties have been held for religious usage for centuries. The court also asked how the government would go about registering such 'Waqfs by user' and what proofs would be necessary, observing that many such properties would not have recognised legal documents.

The Controversy Over Non-Muslims on the Waqf Council

The addition of non-Muslims to the Central Waqf Council is yet another contentious provision under the new law that the court was concerned with. The Waqf Council has historically been an institution charged with the supervision and regulation of Waqf properties, and the notion of having non-Muslims represented on it has opened up discussions about religious autonomy and government intervention in religious affairs.

Chief Justice Khanna posed a blunt question: “Mr. Mehta, are you saying you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly.” This question appeared to probe the broader issue of whether the government was overstepping its bounds by imposing such provisions and whether similar arrangements would be made for other religious communities in the country.

Violence and Protests Against the Law

The court also raised alarm about the violence that had broken out in some areas of the country following the Waqf Amendment Act. The law has been protested against in several states, with protesters claiming that the new provisions violate religious freedoms and are an interference by the government in religious matters.

Chief Justice Khanna termed the violence as "very disturbing," and both he and Justice Kumar insisted that there was a need to deal with the grievances pointed out by the petitioners without compromising public order. The court realised that even though there are some cases of abuse of Waqf properties, there also exist genuine cases that cannot be overlooked.

Solicitor General Mehta replied that the protesters against the law thought they could "pressurise the system" by resorting to violence. Kapil Sibal, however, rebutted by arguing that it was not clear who exactly was behind the pressure tactics and insisted that the legal process should not be subject to external pressures.

Family of Concerns and Legal Precedents

In the ongoing dispute, the Chief Justice demanded the Center should emphasise both good aspects of the law and find solutions without diminishing religious communities' rights and freedoms. The previous Supreme Court decisions regarding religious freedom and property rights needed substantial weight in determining this present case, as per the Chief Justice's comments.

The case will continue to be heard tomorrow, and with both political and legal pressures building, it is yet to be seen how the court will balance the intricacies of religious freedom, property rights, and the government's role in overseeing religious institutions. As the petitions progress, the Supreme Court's ruling could have far-reaching implications for the future of the Waqf administration in India and the larger issue of religious autonomy in a plural society.