Supreme Court to hear challenges against Waqf Amendment Act on April 16
text_fields
New Delhi: A Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, is scheduled to hear on April 16 a total of 10 petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Among these petitions is one filed by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi.
According to the Supreme Court's website, the three-judge bench also includes Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. In addition to Owaisi's plea, the court will address petitions submitted by AAP leader Amanatullah Khan, the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights, Arshad Madani, Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema, Anjum Kadari, Taiyyab Khan Salmani, Mohammad Shafi, Mohammed Fazlurrahim, and RJD leader Manoj Kumar Jha.
Several other petitions are yet to be listed by the Supreme Court registry. Meanwhile, on April 8, the Centre filed a caveat in the apex court, requesting to be heard before any orders are issued in the matter.
A caveat is filed by a party in the high courts and the apex court to ensure that no orders are passed without hearing it.
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and Congress MPs Imran Pratapgarhi and Mohammad Jawed are other key petitioners.
On April 7, a bench headed by the CJI assured senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, to consider listing the petitions.
The DMK, through its deputy general secretary A Raja, filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, claiming it infringes the rights of 50 lakh Muslims in Tamil Nadu and 20 crore Muslims across India. The party criticised the Union government for passing the bill despite widespread opposition and objections from stakeholders.
The AIMPLB also filed a plea on April 6, with spokesperson SQR Ilyas condemning the amendments as "arbitrary, discriminatory, and exclusionary". The petition argued that the Act violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee religious freedom and the right to manage religious institutions.
Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind described the Act as a "dangerous conspiracy" against Muslims' religious freedom, while Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema called it a "blatant intrusion" into the rights of religious denominations. Other petitions, including those by Jawed, Owaisi, and AAP MLA Khan, highlighted concerns over discrimination, arbitrary restrictions, and violations of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300-A. Several organisations, including the Association for the Protection of Civil Rights, have also challenged the Act's validity.
(inputs from PTI)
