The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a notice to the Central and State Governments on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of some provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
A bench of India’s Chief Justice Bra Gawai and Justice Augustine George Maasih tagged the argument with pending petitions challenging the 1995 Waqf Act.
The apex court was hearing a petition filed by Nikhil Upadhyay challenging the 1995 Act.
During the hearing, the bench asked advocate Ashwini Upadhyay to appear for the petitioner, as he was challenging the 1995 Act in 2025.
Upadhyay replied that he was also challenging the 2013 Waqf Amendment Act. For this, CJI said, “Even then, 2013 to 2025. 12 years. It is delayed.”
The Supreme Court is already hearing petitions challenging the places of Pooja Act 1991 and National Minorities Commission Act 1992, submitted by the advocate.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who represents the Center, told the bench that the court has not allowed the 1995 Act to challenge the Act, as well as a hearing with petitions challenging the 2025 amendment. However, there is no objection to tagging this latest petition with another petition challenging the 1995 Act.
The petition presented that only Muslims have a law related to the administration of their charitable qualities, and other religions do not have a uniform law; Therefore, the Waqf Act 1995 was discriminatory.
The petition challenged the constitutional validity of some sections of the Waqf Act 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, stating that these provisions are against Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution.
The petitioner further stated that the state cannot give grants to the expenses incurred for verification of Waqf and their assets at the cost of public exchequer, while other religious institutions and their assets are not grant of expenses for survey.
The petition stated, “The cost of survey for verification of Waqf and its properties should not be borne by the state. There should be a general or similar law for religious trusts and settlements.” (AI)