Waqf Amendment Act: What petitioners have said in response to government's arguments in Supreme Court

After Central government filed its counter affidavit before the Supreme Court defending the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, the petitioners challenging the Act have filed their rejoinder affidavits in response to the government. .In their rejoinder submissions, the petitioners have highlighted how the right of Muslim community would be thwarted if the Act is allowed to stand in its entirety.Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Amanatullah Khan has submitted that government can regulate a religious denomination's right to administer its own property but "it cannot altogether take over the administration of its property". .Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party has stated that the newly inserted Section 3B(2) by the Amendment Act, which mandates the disclosure of the mode and date of creation and the name and address of the waqf, irrespective of whether such information is ascertainable, imposes an impossible burden. "This provision is not only arbitrary but also operates retrospectively to delegitimize existing waqfs by user on purely procedural grounds," DMK has contended. .On the Central government's claim that a 'waqf by user' which fails to register or provide such information cannot be recognised, the political party has contended that it is directly contradicted by the proviso to Section 3(r) introduced by the very same Amendment Act, which acknowledges that waqfs by user registered as late as April 4, 2025, a day before the commencement of the Amendment Act, shall be deemed valid. "This clearly demonstrates that the legislature itself accepted the possibility of genuine waqfs by user being registered until only recently. The respondent's claim that a waqf which allegedly defied registration requirements for 100 years is per se fictitious is negated by the structure of the Amendment Act itself," the affidavit filed by DMK states. .Inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards aimed at inclusivity: Centre defends Waqf Amendment Act in Supreme Court .Further, according to DMK, the submission of government that waqf differs from Hindu endowments because waqf encompasses charitable purposes such as healthcare, education, and aid to the poor and needy, is entirely fallacious. "The petitioner respectfully submits that this assertion is directly contradicted by the express terms of various State enactments governing Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, which include both religious and non-religious (charitable) purposes........All of these statutes make it clear that Hindu charitable endowments may include rest houses, choultries, schools, colleges and hospitals-institutions which are not only religious in nature, but civic and secular in utility. Thus, the distinction sought to be drawn by the respondent between waqfs and Hindu endowments on the ground of charitable breadth is demonstrably artificial and unsustainable," DMK has submitted. .NGO Association for Protection of Civil Rights (ACPR) has contended that inclusion of non-Muslim members in the statutory composition of institutions exclusively created for managing Islamic religious endowments is both unprecedented and unjustified. "It results in external interference in religious affairs, particularly in administrative matters that intimately relate to religious practices. property, endowment purposes, and sect-specific customs," ACPR has submitted..ACPR has further stated that such a provision is wholly absent in laws governing other religious institutions in India. "For example, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Acts of several states, or the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, preserve religious autonomy by ensuring the administrative bodies are composed of members belonging to that religion. This discriminatory imposition on only Muslim institutions violates Article 14 as well as Article 26(b), which guarantees every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion," ACPR has contended in its rejoinder affidavit. .Mere presence of Muslim-majority membership does not sanitize the inherent defect of state-imposed external participation in internal religious administration. "The autonomy of religious institutions is not subject to majoritarian override but is a matter of protected constitutional freedom," says ACPR..The case will be heard at 2 pm on Monday by a bench comprising of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice PV Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan..The Waqf (Amendment) Act of 205 amended the Waqf Act, 1995, in order to address the regulation of Waqf properties, that is, properties dedicated exclusively for religious or charitable purposes under Islamic law.The Lok Sabha had passed the law on April 3 while the Rajya Sabha had cleared it on April 4.The amendment Act received Presidential assent on April 5.A slew of petitions came to be filed before the top court challenging the amendment's validity, including by Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mohammad Jawed and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi.On April 17, Centre told the Supreme Court that certain key provisions of the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including the formation of the Central Waqf Council and Waqf Boards and provisions on de-notifying properties already declared or registered as waqf, will not be acted upon for the time being.The apex court is mooting a stay on some of the provisions of the Act. .Waqf Amendment Act: Centre tells Supreme Court it will not constitute Waqf boards, de-notify existing waqf for now