BY PC Bureau
April 10, 2025 – Sheikh Noorul Hassan, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Kshetrigao in Manipur and the head of the National People’s Party (NPP) in the state assembly, has lodged a legal challenge in the Supreme Court against the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. The NPP, a partner of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) within the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), has voiced strong objections to the law, which was signed into effect by the President on April 5, just a day after Parliament approved it following extensive debate on April 4.
In his filing, Hassan asserts that the new law infringes on the rights of Scheduled Tribes (STs) who follow Islam by barring them from designating their land as waqf property. Under Section 3E of the Act, properties held by ST members under the Constitution’s Fifth or Sixth Schedules cannot be classified as waqf. Hassan argues this restriction unfairly blocks ST Muslims from fully exercising their faith, calling it a breach of their constitutional protections. “This ban stops Scheduled Tribe members from practicing their religion freely and is plainly unjust,” the petition declares.
ALSO READ: Analysis: Ethnic Rivalries Unravel Stability in Manipur’s Hills
The MLA further contends that the amendment introduces unreasonable curbs and ramps up government oversight of Islamic endowments, straying from the core purpose of waqf. “These changes warp the spiritual nature of waqfs and irreparably harm the democratic management of waqf bodies,” the plea warns, accusing the state of using the law as a pretext to seize control of Muslim religious assets.
Core Issues Raised
- Scrapping “Waqf by User”: The petition slams the removal of the “waqf by user” principle, which recognized properties long used for Muslim religious purposes as waqf, even without formal documentation. Referencing the Supreme Court’s Ram Janmabhoomi verdict, Hassan says this erasure jeopardizes historic waqf sites, opening them to disputes.
- Five-Year Faith Proof Requirement: The Act’s demand that individuals prove five years of Islamic practice to establish a waqf is branded an overstep into personal beliefs. “No government can objectively judge someone’s devotion,” the plea insists, decrying it as an arbitrary invasion by authorities lacking religious legitimacy.
- Family Waqf and Inheritance: Section 3A(2) mandates that creating a waqf-alal-aulad (family waqf) cannot override inheritance rights, including for women. While this mirrors broader succession laws, it curbs the flexibility traditionally allowed in such arrangements.
- Longer Window to Contest Waqf Status: The amendment stretches the timeframe to challenge waqf designations from one year to two, and permits late filings with good cause, effectively loosening rigid deadlines.
- Forced Inclusion of Non-Muslims: Requiring at least two non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council and State Waqf Boards is seen as eroding Muslim self-governance, violating constitutional guarantees of equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and religious independence (Article 26).
- State Overreach: The plea accuses the government of acting as “arbiter, judge, and enforcer” by empowering itself to decide a property’s waqf status via appointed officials under Section 3C. This, it cautions, could trigger widespread appropriation of waqf holdings.
- Clash with Heritage Laws: Section 3D voids waqf claims if a property is already a protected monument, clashing with the settled legal doctrine of “once a waqf, always a waqf,” upheld by prior court rulings.
Relief Demanded
Hassan has called on the Supreme Court to:
- Rule the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 unconstitutional for breaching Articles 14, 25, and 26.
- Overturn the law entirely.
- Issue any further directives as needed.
The petition warns that the Act unfairly targets Muslims, potentially paving the way for state meddling in other religious communities’ affairs. “Religious institutions must be managed by their own followers to preserve their integrity,” it argues.
With the Supreme Court set to take up the matter, this challenge fuels an escalating debate over the line between governmental power and religious liberty in India.
ALSO READ:Â Cong Session: Big on Words, Short on Action for Revival
