The Congress MP from Bihar’s Kishanganj has moved the Supreme Court against the bill, calling it discriminatory towards Muslims”.
AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and Congress MP Mohammad Jawed on Friday filed pleas in the Supreme Court against the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024 after the proposed legislation was passed by the Parliament and now remains to be signed by President Droupadi Murmu for it to become a law.
Owaisi contended that the provisions “brazenly violate the fundamental rights of Muslims and the Muslim community while the Congress MP called the bill “discriminatory towards Muslims”.
The Rajya Sabha passed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill after midnight on Thursday following an extensive discussion. The bill now awaits President Droupadi Murmu’s assent to become law.
In his petition, Mr. Jawed argued that the bill violates the fundamental rights of Muslims. He contended that it breaches several constitutional provisions such as Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 25 (Freedom to Practice Religion), Article 26 (Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs), Article 29 (Minority Rights) and Article 300A (Right to Property).
Jawed, who serves as the Congress whip in the Lok Sabha, was also a member of the joint parliamentary committee that reviewed the Waqf Amendment Bill.
The Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha with 128 members voting in favour and 95 opposing it. It was passed in the Lok Sabha early Thursday, with 288 members supporting it and 232 against it.
The proposed law discriminates against Muslims by imposing restrictions not applied to other religious endowments, Congress MP Jawed argued in a petition filed through his lawyer, Anas Tanwir.
The petition stated, “For instance, while Hindu and Sikh religious trusts continue to enjoy a degree of self-regulation, the amendments to the Waqf Act, 1995, significantly increase state intervention in Waqf affairs.”
It further argued that such differential treatment violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) and introduces arbitrary classifications that lack a reasonable connection to the intended objectives, making them impermissible under the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness.
The petition argued that the amendment requiring the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf administrative bodies, such as the Waqf Board and the Central Waqf Council, constituted unwarranted interference in religious governance. It pointed out that, in contrast, Hindu religious endowments remain exclusively managed by Hindus under various state laws.