In a significant legal challenge, Congress Member of Parliament Mohammad Jawed has moved the Supreme Court against the Waqf Amendment Act, which he claims discriminates against the Muslim community and infringes upon their fundamental rights. The petition, filed under the case name Mohammad Jawed vs Union of India, argues that the amendment act violates multiple constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 25, 26, 29, and 300A.
Mohammad Jawed, who also serves as the Congress party whip in Lok Sabha and was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill of 2024, contends that the new law disrupts the balance of religious equality and state intervention. The Waqf Amendment Bill, which has passed both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, awaits Presidential assent and is not yet in force.
According to the petition, filed through advocate Anas Tanwir, the act imposes restrictions uniquely on Waqf properties, compared to Hindu and Sikh religious trusts that maintain a higher degree of self-regulation. “The amendments disproportionately increase state intervention in Waqf affairs, introducing arbitrary classifications that lack a reasonable nexus to the objectives sought to be achieved,” the plea emphasizes, claiming a violation of the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness.
Further, the petition criticizes the new restrictions on creating Waqfs, based on the duration of one’s religious practice, which it argues has no grounding in Islamic law, custom, or precedent. This, Jawed argues, infringes upon the fundamental right to profess and practice religion under Article 25 and discriminates against new converts to Islam, in violation of Article 15.
The amendment also changes the composition of the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council, mandating the inclusion of non-Muslim members in administrative bodies—a move described in the petition as an “unwarranted interference” and an imbalance compared to the management of Hindu religious endowments, which are governed exclusively by Hindus under various state laws.
This legal challenge opens another chapter in the contentious debate over the governance of religious properties in India, spotlighting the delicate balance between secular state oversight and religious freedoms.
