Waqf Act 2025 Sparks Uproar: 7 Shocking Ways It Threatens Minority Rights – Supreme Court Steps In

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, underscores its role as the guardian of India’s constitutional ethos, challenging a law critics argue undermines minority rights. The Act’s abolition of “waqf by user” — a centuries-old practice recognizing religious endowments through community use — and its burdensome registration clauses threaten Muslim institutions’ autonomy, clashing with Articles 25 and 26 safeguarding religious freedom.

Echoing B.R. Ambedkar’s warnings against marginalizing minorities and Sardar Patel’s appeal for majority empathy, the Court’s intervention revives foundational debates about secularism. Historically, rulings like the Shirur Mutt case (1954) barred state overreach into religious affairs, emphasizing that faith-based practices transcend bureaucratic control. By revisiting these principles, the judiciary signals that majoritarian laws eroding cultural heritage or alienating 150 million Muslims risk fracturing India’s pluralist fabric.

The controversy tests whether constitutional morality, not political expediency, will define the nation’s commitment to justice. 

Waqf Act 2025 Sparks Uproar: 7 Shocking Ways It Threatens Minority Rights – Supreme Court Steps In

In a nation built on the promise of pluralism and constitutional morality, the Supreme Court’s recent scrutiny of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, has reignited critical debates about the protection of minority rights in India. Legal experts and civil society have raised alarms over the Act’s potential to undermine religious freedoms, with critics labeling it a “majoritarian overreach” that disregards constitutional safeguards and the sentiments of India’s 150 million Muslims. The Court’s intervention underscores its enduring role as the guardian of fundamental rights, echoing the warnings of founding figures like B.R. Ambedkar and Sardar Patel, who emphasized that a democracy’s strength lies in its ability to protect its most vulnerable communities.  

Historical Echoes: Ambedkar and Patel’s Warnings 

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, architect of India’s Constitution, repeatedly cautioned against marginalizing minorities, stating in 1948 that no government should provoke a community to “rise in rebellion” through oppressive laws. His words resonate today as the Waqf Act’s amendments risk destabilizing the delicate balance between majority rule and minority protection. Similarly, Sardar Patel, while urging minorities to trust the majority’s “sense of fairness,” reminded the nation that empathy—not majoritarian dominance—must guide governance.  

The new Waqf Act, however, appears to sidestep these principles. By dismantling the recognition of “waqf by user” (properties traditionally used for religious purposes) and imposing stringent registration requirements, the law threatens centuries-old Islamic endowments. Critics argue this erodes the autonomy of Muslim institutions, violating constitutional guarantees under Articles 25 and 26, which protect freedom of religion and the right to manage religious affairs.  

Constitutional Clash: Articles 25, 26, and the Role of the Judiciary 

The Supreme Court has historically acted as a bulwark against laws infringing on religious freedoms. In the landmark Shirur Mutt case (1954), the Court struck down provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, affirming that the state cannot interfere in the essential practices of a religion. Similarly, in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi vs State of Bombay (1954), it upheld the right of communities to administer properties in accordance with their beliefs, stressing that courts must respect religious conscience.  

The Waqf Act’s stringent clauses, however, risk politicizing the management of Islamic trusts. By subjecting existing waqfs to rigorous bureaucratic scrutiny, the law could disenfranchise Muslim institutions, echoing past controversies like the Babri Masjid dispute. In its 2020 Ayodhya verdict, the Supreme Court acknowledged the significance of waqf properties, making the new amendments particularly contentious.  

Why the Act Sparks Outcry 

• Erosion of Autonomy: The Act transfers disproportionate control to government-appointed bodies, diluting the authority of Muslim trustees.  

• Historical Disregard: “Waqf by user” has historically allowed communities to designate land for religious use through practice, not paperwork. Its abolition risks erasing centuries of cultural heritage.  

• Selective Targeting: Critics question why only Muslim endowments face such scrutiny, contrasting it with the autonomy granted to Hindu temples and Sikh gurdwaras. 

Legal scholar Dushyant Dave argues that the Act contradicts the spirit of Article 32, which enshrines the right to constitutional remedies. “The Court’s role isn’t just to interpret laws but to shield citizens from legislative excess,” he notes.  

The Supreme Court’s Balancing Act 

The judiciary’s intervention offers a glimmer of hope. By examining the Act’s constitutionality, the Court reaffirms its commitment to preventing what Ambedkar termed “tyranny of the majority.” Past rulings suggest that any law disrupting the essential practices of a religion or alienating minority communities will face rigorous scrutiny.  

A Test for India’s Democracy 

The Waqf Act controversy is more than a legal battle—it is a litmus test for India’s secular fabric. As Patel once urged, the majority must ask: How would we feel in their position? The Supreme Court’s vigilance reminds us that constitutional morality, not majoritarian impulses, must guide the nation. In safeguarding minority rights, India safeguards its own soul.