In a pointed exchange during the morning mentioning session at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna firmly reminded Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi to adhere to proper procedures. They sought to mention a petition challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, also known as the UMEED Bill.
“We have moved a petition to challenge the Waqf Act,” said Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, joined by Senior Advocate Singhvi, requesting an urgent listing.
However, the CJI swiftly responded, emphasizing the importance of due process:
“Why are you mentioning it when there is a system? There is a system in place… I will get the letter in the afternoon; I will do what is necessary.”
The Chief Justice clarified that urgent matters would be taken up later in the day and assigned a suitable listing date accordingly. While the senior counsels clarified that they were “just mentioning” the matter without pressing for immediate relief, the Court insisted that all listing requests follow established procedures.
Advocate Nizam Pasha also mentioned a petition filed by Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi, which similarly challenges the legislation.
PETITIONS FILED AGAINST WAQF AMENDMENT ACT, 2025
So far, the following individuals and organizations have filed petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution:
Mohd. Jawed (Indian National Congress)
Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM)
Amanatullah Khan (AAP)
Association For Protection of Civil Rights (APCR)
Maulana Arshad Madani (President, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind)
Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulema (Kerala-based Muslim organization)
Anjum kadari
ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (APCR) PETITION
Filed through AoR Adeel Ahmed, this petition challenges the Unified Waqf Management Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development (UMEED) Bill, 2025, as violative of constitutional provisions protecting religious autonomy and minority rights.
INVOKING ARTICLES 14, 25, 26, AND 300A, THE PETITIONER ARGUES:
“The UMEED Bill directly violates Articles 14 (equality before law), 25 and 26 (freedom of religion), and 300A (right to property), in addition to undermining the secular and democratic values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution.”
The petition alleges that the Bill was:
- Rushed through Parliament without adequate debate (passed by Lok Sabha on April 3 and by Rajya Sabha on April 4, 2025).
- A “grave assault” on religious freedom and autonomy of Waqf institutions.
- Introduced without meaningful consultation with stakeholders.
- Specific concerns were raised over:
- The insertion of Section 40, which allegedly undermines natural justice in Waqf management.
- The removal of Section 3(i)(r), which upheld the “Waqf by user” doctrine.
- The petition draws from the Ayodhya verdict (M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das) to assert:
- “The omission reflects a retreat from constitutional safeguards and judicially accepted principles.”
It concludes:
“The petitioner humbly submits that the UMEED Bill, 2025, is an unconstitutional and unjustified legislative overreach that must be struck down in the interest of upholding the fundamental rights, individual freedom and religious autonomy guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”
ANJUM KADARI’S PETITION
Filed through AoR Sanjeev Malhotra, this petition too seeks the striking down of the UMEED Bill, citing a broad range of constitutional violations, including:
Article 14 – Right to equality
Article 15 – Protection from discrimination
Article 19 – Freedom of speech and expression
Article 21 – Right to life and liberty
Articles 25 & 26 – Freedom of religion
Articles 29 & 30 – Cultural and educational rights of minorities
Article 300A – Right to property
The petitioner contends:
“Waqf, defined as property transferred to Allah, has long been protected by comprehensive legal frameworks and judicial interpretation. The new Bill undermines these principles and threatens community autonomy.”
The UMEED Bill, introduced in August 2024, was criticized for ignoring minority voices, particularly during the Joint Parliamentary Committee process. The petition notes:
“Despite objections, the Committee’s report was finalized and tabled in February 2025 and the Bill was hurriedly passed in early April 2025 without meaningful parliamentary debate or public consultation.”
On April 5, 2025, thousands of protestors took to the streets citing:
- Erosion of minority rights
- Unchecked executive control over Waqf Boards
- Violation of secularism and democratic participation
- The petition claims the Bill:
- Curtails religious freedom
- Undermines minority autonomy in religious institutions
- Strips State Waqf Boards of Independence
- Was passed in haste, bypassing procedural fairness
CAUSE TITLES:
Association For Protection of Civil Rights v. Union of India
Anjum Kadari v. Union of India & Ors.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court is expected to consider the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025 in light of these growing legal challenges. The petitions collectively argue that the UMEED Bill threatens the fundamental principles of secularism, minority rights, and religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution. With prominent legal figures and MPs involved, this matter is likely to be one of the most closely watched constitutional battles of the year.
