Hyderabad MP and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi was one of the first petitioners to move the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, hours after it cleared Parliament.
After the Supreme Court on Monday passed an interim order limiting the contentious powers the new law granted to the District Collector in determining the status of a Waqf property and capped the non-Muslim representation in Waqf Boards, Owaisi tells The Indian Express that the court should decide the constitutionality of all the amendments that the government brought. He also speaks of his other concerns that remain. Excerpts:
* How do you view the Supreme Court’s interim order?
The Supreme Court should decide the final issue of the constitutionality of all the amendments to the 1995 Waqf Act that the government brought. From day one, I have been saying that the ruling BJP-NDA government is not at all interested in either protecting or developing Waqf properties or increasing their revenue.
There is a very high likelihood that the BJP will ensure that all Waqf properties are weakened. They will be rewarding encroachers. Why I say that is because the Joint Committee of Parliament report says that the survey of Waqf properties in the country was done only in seven states. So tomorrow, if a survey is done — which again unfortunately will be done by a collector appointed by the executive — and you find that a Waqf property has been encroached and no legal proceedings have been started to retrieve that Waqf property, what will be the result? The result will be that the encroacher will become the owner of that property despite not having the title because the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, decided that the limitation has to apply.
(The 1995 Waqf Act had specifically excluded the application of the Limitation Act, which allowed Waqfs to act against encroachments on their properties without any time limit. The amended law removed this exemption, making it mandatory for legal claims against encroachment to be made within a specific period.)
* Hasn’t the court stayed some crucial provisions?
There is no complete stay on that five-year Muslim rule (the 2025 Act amended the definition of Waqf, stating it could only be created by a ‘person showing or demonstrating that he is practising Islam for at least five years’).
The court has given a stay and said you make rules. When the government makes the rules, the devil will lie in the details. If tomorrow, a person accepts Islam, he can still give his own property to any religion but not to his own. We don’t know what rules the government will make. So, it is not a complete stay.
Secondly, why should a non-Muslim be a member of the State Waqf Board (the court directed that these Boards, with 11 members, shall not have more than three non-Muslim members)? That is a violation of Article 26. Moreover, these State Waqf Boards will be constituted without any election to the MLA category, MP category, or the Mutawalli (caretaker) category, or to the judiciary category. So, what kind of protection will be there for the Waqf property? You are taking away elections with the Act and then you are nominating … Unless and until you are completely willing to accept the ruling party’s diktats, you will not be appointed.
On that five-year rule, let all the BJP-ruled states give us the data, wherein a person accepted Islam and then he has given his property to the Waqf Board. They should share that data and then about this.
* Do you have other concerns?
There are many. On Waqf evacuee properties, the owner is not the Waqf board but the collector. If you go to West UP, Haryana, and Punjab, you find all these evacuee properties.
On the day of the debate in the Lok Sabha, the government introduced three or four amendments. One was that if it is an Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)-protected monument, it will not be Waqf property. You have 400-year-old protected monuments, when the ASI didn’t exist. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act was not in existence. So, once again, the Waqf board is losing ownership.
The government’s argument is that with the ASI, the religious nature or character will not change. It will definitely change. The ASI can jolly well say we will not allow prayers five times but only twice, or after sunrise and sunset, or once a week … There is no stay on that.
What about the Scheduled Tribes? What will happen to Lakshadweep Lok Sabha MP Muhammed Hamdullah Sayeed, who happens to be a Muslim tribal? What about his freedom of religion? We hope, and I know, that the Supreme Court will take a final decision on this whole Act itself.
With this interim order, our apprehension is that the BJP is hell bent on ensuring that the whole Waqf system collapses. On the day of the Parliament debate, one more amendment was brought in that said a trust would not be a Waqf. The Prime Minister said this was done after meeting the Dawoodi Bohra community. But the whole section was created to benefit the richest person in the country, who built his palatial home on land belonging to an orphanage trust.
* So you are not entirely happy with the interim order?
The court has given a stay on Section 3C because it violates natural justice. But who will do the survey? The survey will be done by the collector. Earlier, it was the Survey Commissioner, who is senior to the collector.
Even the existing ‘Waqf by user’, where will they get the documents from? Because when the registration happens, that section says you have to provide deeds. Where will I get a deed? Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad, 350 years old, where will I get a deed (for it)? Take the classic case of UP: 90% of the Sunni Waqf Board properties are ‘Waqf by user’ … There is no stay on oral gifts. In fact, the Transfer of Property Act clearly said oral gift was accepted. Now, I cannot make an oral gift to a Waqf property.
Then there is also no stay on ‘Waqf-alal-aulad (endowment for children)’. The particular amendment on ‘Waqf-alal-aulad’ says I cannot give my property to Waqf, to Allah, because if you have a daughter, I cannot deny her share. This is my property. I am giving it to the Almighty. Where is the question of denying the share to my son or daughter? Now, I cannot do it, whereas in other religions, it is allowed because under Article 300, it is my property. Let us hope the Supreme Court decides the issue at the earliest.
Hyderabad MP and AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi 
Share
