10 Waqf Amendment Act petitions the Supreme Court will hear tomorrow

On April 16, the Supreme Court is slated to hear ten petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the recently passed Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025..The petitions will be heard by a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan..Here is an overview of the 10 petitions listed before the top court..1. Petitioner: Asaduddin Owaisi Plea filed through: Advocate Lzafeer AhmadArguments: Owaisi has stated in his plea that the Amendment Act takes away various protections which were accorded to waqfs earlier.Diminishing the protection given to waqf properties while retaining such protections for religious and charitable endowments of other religions constitutes hostile discrimination against Muslims and is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, the plea has contended."While Parliament represents the will of the people, in today’s era of majoritarian politics, this Hon’ble Court has to discharge its constitutional duty as a sentinel on the qui vive to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority," reads the plea..2. Petitioner: Amanatullah KhanFiled through: Advocate Adeel AhmedArguments: Khan has argued that the introduction of non-Muslim members to the Central Waqf Council and state waqf boards under Sections 9 and 14 is violative of Article 14, since it creates a classification that is not based on intelligible differentia, nor does it have a rational nexus with the object of religious property administration. Further, the plea states that Section 3(r) of the Amendment Act restricts waqf creation to only Muslims who have practiced Islam for at least 5 years and who own the property. This disqualifies historical forms of waqf by user and informal dedications. .3. Petitioner: Association for the Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) Filed through: Advocate Adeel AhmadArguments: APCR has stated that inefficiencies in the functioning of waqf boards or mutawallis (caretaker of waqf properties) can be effectively addressed through discussions and the appointment of advisors, as recommended by the Sachar Committee Report, 2006. It has been contended that the drastic overhaul proposed by the Amendment Act is not only unnecessary, but is also an alarming interference into the religious affairs of the Muslim community. The changes would dilute the fundamental purpose of waqf, which is a practice deeply rooted in Quranic references and the Hadith since the time of Prophet Muhammad, the plea states..4. Petitioner: Maulana Arshad MadaniFiled through: Advocate Fuzail Ahmad AyyubiArguments: The plea states that several waqf properties would be vulnerable due to the mandatory timelines for uploading details on the online portal and database envisaged under the Amendment Act. This threatens the very existence of a large number of historical waqfs, particularly those created by oral dedication or without formal deeds, it has been contended. The petition lays a challenge to the omission of 'waqf by user' from the definition of waqf. It states that 'waqf by user' was an evidentiary tool developed by courts and its removal would deprive a large number of older mosques and graveyards from the benefit of the judicial doctrine specifically recognised by the Supreme Court in the the 2019 Ayodhya judgment..5. Petitioner: Samastha Kerala Jamiathul UlemaFiled through: Advocate Zulfiker Ali PSArguments: The plea submits that the 2025 Act is designed to weaken the state waqf boards and to convert waqf properties into government properties. As per the petition, the amendments will distort the religious character of waqfs, while also irreversibly damaging the democratic process that governs the administration of waqfs and waqf boards. The Kerala-based organisation has stated that the 2025 Act is a blatant intrusion into the rights of a religious denomination to manage its own religious affairs, which is protected under Article 26 of the Constitution of India..6. Petitioner: Anjum KadariFiled through: Advocate Sanjeev MalhotraArguments: Kadari has contended that the selective amendment of waqf property sets a "dangerous and discriminatory precedent, undermining the fundamental principles of equality, religious freedom and protection of minority rights."According to the petitioner, in order to uphold the validity and sanctity of judicial precedent and to protect the constitutional rights of the Muslim community, the omission of 'waqf by user' and the Act itself must be reconsidered. .7. Petitioner: Taiyyab Khan SalmaniFiled through: Advocate Sanjeev MalhotraArguments: Salmani has stated that the restriction on who can create a waqf is in direct conflict with Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which does not prescribe any other condition except that a person must be Muslim, competent to contract within the meaning of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act and a resident of the territories to which the 1937 Act extends. .8. Petitioner: Mohammad Shafi Filed through: Advocate Wajeeh ShafiqArguments: Shafi has submitted that the amendments are hit by the principle of "quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum," which translates to "what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly". The plea states that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 interferes with rights of the dedicator, of the users and also of the manager of waqf properties. .9. Petitioner: Mohammad FazlurrahimFiled through: Advocate Talha Abdul RahmanArguments: The plea filed by the General Secretary of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board states that the Act is not to be seen in isolation, but in the context of various other executive orders, policing methods, de facto and raw exercises of power, and subordinate legislation that together form an onslaught on the principles of fraternity, equality and equal protection of law. The text and the context of the law are both important in understanding whether the Act is against the principle of constitutional morality, reads the plea. .10. Petitioners: Dr Manoj Kumar Jha and Faiyaz AhmadFiled through: Advocate Fauzia ShakilArguments: Jha and Ahmad, who are Members of Parliament from the Rashtriya Janata Dal, have challenged the Act on grounds of violation of Articles 1, 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A of the Constitution.The plea states that the law singles out Muslim religious endowments for intrusive government control, thereby discriminating on the basis of religion in violation of Articles 14 and 15.