Wakf Act Violence Draws Supreme Court’s Ire: ‘Extremely Disturbing’
#News Bureau April 17,2025
The Supreme Court made a strong comment on the violence that erupted in various parts of the country over the Waqf Act and called it ‘extremely disturbing’. The court said that there can be disagreement about the law, but there is no place for violence.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed serious concern over the violence that erupted in parts of the country following the implementation of the Waqf Amendment Act. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna described the incidents as “extremely disturbing” and emphasized that such acts of violence are unacceptable, especially when the matter is sub judice.
The court made these observations while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act.
Violent protests were reported from Murshidabad district in West Bengal, where vehicles were set on fire and public property was damaged. Tensions escalated to the point where members of the Hindu community in some areas fled their homes fearing for their safety.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the petitioners, also condemned the unrest and urged for immediate steps to curb the violence.
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, during the hearing on the Waqf Amendment Act, strongly condemned the recent violence, stating, “Violence should never be the response to any form of dissent. The incidents are very disturbing.” He added that the matter is under the court’s consideration and assured that the bench is fully aware of its seriousness and committed to delivering a fair resolution.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, voiced concern over the recent violence linked to the Waqf Amendment Act, urging the Supreme Court to take such incidents seriously. He stressed that it must not appear that violence can be used as a tool to influence legal proceedings.
The Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, recently passed by Parliament and signed into law by President Droupadi Murmu on April 5, aims to reform the functioning of Waqf Boards. The Act includes provisions for greater transparency, such as allowing non-Muslim members to be part of the boards—a move the government says promotes inclusivity and better governance.
However, the legislation has drawn sharp criticism from several quarters, with opponents calling it an infringement on religious autonomy. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, the DMK, and Congress MPs Imran Pratapgarhi and Mohammad Javed are among those who have filed multiple petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the Act’s constitutional validity.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court posed critical questions to the Centre. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna questioned the rationale behind the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards, asking, “Are you ready to allow Muslims to be part of Hindu religious trusts? Speak openly.” The query pointed to broader concerns about equality and secularism in the governance of religious institutions.
The bench also sought clarity on whether the amendment aligns with Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and freedom of religion, respectively. Petitioners further argued that the requirement to produce centuries-old documents related to mosques was impractical, prompting the court to seek a response from the Centre on that issue as well.
The central government filed a caveat in the Supreme Court on April 8, requesting that it be given an opportunity to present its case before any order is passed in the matter concerning the Waqf Amendment Act. The government maintains that the amendment is essential for the improved administration of Waqf properties and to curb their misuse.
In contrast, the petitioners argue that the amendment infringes upon the religious rights of the Muslim community, raising concerns about its constitutional validity.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised serious concerns about the practicality of cancelling waqf properties recognized through long-standing usage, known as “waqf by user.” Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, heading the bench, noted that many mosques dating back to the 14th to 16th centuries lack formal sale deeds or registration documents.
“How will you register such waqf by user? What documents will they have?” the CJI asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the hearing. He warned that nullifying such waqfs could trigger broader complications.
While acknowledging that misuse of waqf laws does occur, the Chief Justice underscored the importance of recognizing legitimate waqf properties established through continued usage. “I’ve read the Privy Council decisions. Waqf by user has been recognized. If you cancel it, it will be a problem,” he remarked.
The case, which challenges the constitutional validity of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, could have far-reaching consequences beyond waqf boards. The court’s eventual ruling may influence the governance of other major religious trusts such as the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanams or the Shirdi Sai Baba Trust.
From a broader social lens, the case is being seen as a test of India’s commitment to secularism and multicultural harmony. Uneven implementation of such policies could deepen mistrust among communities, while a balanced and inclusive judicial approach may set a precedent for the equitable management of religious institutions across the country.
The Supreme Court’s remarks and condemnation of the violence not only underscore the controversy over the Waqf Amendment Act, but also the importance of equality, transparency and adherence to constitutional principles in the management of religious institutions in India. The court’s final decision will determine whether the law will promote social harmony or deepen tensions.
