May 22, 2025
NEW DELHI – The Central government on Wednesday defended the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Councils and Boards, arguing before the Supreme Court that these bodies perform largely administrative and secular functions, making such inclusion constitutionally valid and non-infringing upon religious rights.
Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a Bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih that although waqf has Islamic origins, it does not constitute an essential religious practice under Islam. Therefore, its governance structures can include members from outside the Muslim community.
“Waqf is an Islamic concept, but it is not an essential part of Islam. Unless that is shown, other arguments fail…The functions of waqf boards—managing waqf properties, accounting, audits—are purely secular,” Mehta submitted during the second day of hearings on interim relief related to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
The current hearings are focused on interim relief, while the substantive constitutional challenges to the 2025 amendment are scheduled for a detailed hearing later.
Responding to concerns raised by petitioners over the inclusion of non-Muslim members, Mehta clarified that the amendment allows for a maximum of two non-Muslim members on a Waqf Council or Board. He stressed that their inclusion is aimed at enhancing transparency and inclusivity, not altering the religious character of waqf institutions.
“Would the inclusion of two non-Muslims change the character of waqf? The board does not engage in religious activity—it merely manages properties and oversees compliance,” Mehta said.
He cited deliberations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee and clarifications previously issued by the Centre, asserting that the fear of Muslims being outnumbered on these bodies was unfounded.
Distinguishing waqf from Hindu religious endowments, Mehta argued that they operate differently under law.
“Hindu endowments are deeply religious in nature. Their commissioners can enter temples and even appoint pujaris, under state government authority. In contrast, waqf boards do not interfere in religious practices,” he noted.
This rebuttal came in response to the petitioners’ arguments that non-Hindus are not permitted in Hindu, Sikh, or Christian religious bodies, and that Muslim institutions should enjoy similar protection in matters of composition.
Mehta also pointed out that many of the provisions being challenged have precedents in earlier waqf laws—including the 1976 Committee Report, 1984 Waqf Act, 1995 Act, and 2013 amendments—but had not been implemented until now.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.
Petitioners include Mohammad Jawed (Congress MP), Asaduddin Owaisi (AIMIM MP), Maulana Arshad Madani, Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Samastha Kerala Jamiatul Ulama, Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), and the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR).
They contend that the amendments are discriminatory, infringe upon Muslim religious autonomy, and violate Articles 15, 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, six BJP-ruled states—Haryana, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Assam—have filed intervention applications supporting the amendment. They argue that the reforms are necessary to prevent fraudulent claims of public and private land as waqf.