By The Sampadak Express
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the amended Waqf Act, following intense debate over whether waqf is a religious obligation or a charitable act, and whether the new provisions infringe upon fundamental rights.
The hearing concluded with senior advocate Kapil Sibal asserting that waqf is a religious endowment dedicated to God for spiritual merit in Islam, and not merely a secular donation. “Unlike other religions, waqf is a charity to God, meant for the afterlife,” Sibal argued, pushing back against the government’s stance that waqf is not an essential Islamic practice.
In response, Chief Justice BR Gavai pointed out that religious charity is not unique to Islam. “In Hinduism, there is moksha, and charity plays a vital role in other religions too,” he said. Justice Augustine George Masih echoed the sentiment, drawing parallels with Christianity: “We are all trying to get into heaven.”
Core Debate: Religious Right or Secular Function?
At the center of the case is the question of whether waqf should be treated as an essential religious practice protected under Article 26 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to manage religious affairs or as a secular institution subject to government regulation.
The government has defended the amendments by arguing that waqf properties often include secular institutions like madrasas and orphanages, and thus must be managed transparently. It insists waqf is not a core religious activity, and the new rules ensure equitable governance.
However, petitioners argue this violates Muslim rights, especially with the appointment of non-Muslims to waqf boards—a point raised repeatedly during the hearings. “Will the government now appoint non-Hindus to temple management boards?” the bench previously questioned.’
Waqf by User’ and Proof of Religion Controversies
Petitioners also contested the law’s requirement that only Muslims who have practiced their faith for at least five years can make donations. “Which religious institution asks for proof of belief?” argued senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
Another controversial change is the removal of the waqf by user clause, which previously allowed properties to be declared waqf if used for religious or charitable purposes by Muslims, even without documentation. The government defended this move, stating that the provision had statutory not constitutional status and could be withdrawn via legislation.
Calls for Interim Relief Rejected
The Centre has opposed any interim stay on the implementation of the amended law. “Courts cannot directly or indirectly stay statutory provisions. There is a presumption of constitutionality in laws passed by Parliament,” the government reiterated.
The petitions before the Supreme Court challenge multiple provisions of the revised Waqf Act passed in April 2024, including mandatory non-Muslim representation on waqf boards and restrictions on who can make donations. While the government claims the changes promote transparency and gender equity, critics have called them “draconian” and a violation of religious freedom.
A verdict from the Supreme Court is now awaited, which could have significant implications for how religious endowments are regulated in India across all faiths.
