Delhi Mla Amanatatullah Khan moves the supreme court that challenges Bill Fill for modifying waqf

One day after two writings petition were submitted to the constitutionality of the WAQF (modification) law, 2025, another petition has now been submitted Amanatullah Khan, member of the Delhi Legislative AssemblyBling at the Aam Aadmi party, claiming that the 2025 law reduced the religious and cultural autonomy of Muslims and allowed the arbitrary executive interference with the rights to manage its religious and charitable institutions.

It is stated that, although the draft law did not receive the president’s agreement, its provisions have triggered the widespread anxiety, in particular the changes that dilute religious autonomy and the constitutional protections of the WAQF institutions.

The petition challenged the changes in parental law, Waqf Act, 1995, such as the following:

1.. The renaming of the law as “uniform WAQF management, ability, efficiency and development”

2. Section 3 (r), adding the condition that only the Muslims who practice Islam for 5 years can create WAQF. The challenge land is that it disqualifies the historical forms of WAQF by users and informal dedications.

“The impulted provisions violate this autonomy by staticly modifying the essential religious practice of WAQF dedication in accordance with Muslim law.” As they say in the petition.

3. The omissity from the use of US.

“Article 29 guarantees the right of any section of citizens who have a distinct culture that keeps the same.

Article 30 protects the rights of minorities to establish and administer institutions of choice. By undermining the autonomy of the board of directors and of the religious charities and the centralization of power in the secular executive hands, the draft law is based on this guarantee.

4. Section 3, which states that WAQF-ALAU-AULAD cannot deny the inheritance rights, especially for women’s heirs.

5. section 3B, which requires the deposit of WAQF and the details of the property on the central portal within 6 months;

“The draft law centralizes the power by compulsory digitalization (section 3b) and central regulations (section 108b) without adequate consultation with the WAQF State Councils. It violates the federal distribution of the legislative powers according to the seventh programming and the principles provided in SR Bomb. Waqf.

6. Section 3C, which says that the property of the Government cannot be declared as WAQF and the disputes to be resolved by the collector.

“Section 3C forbids any government property to be declared WAQF. This legal exclusion of government lands, regardless of historical or users, disproportionately affects the Muslim community. In the Indian lawyers Association V. State of Kerala (2018 10 SCC 1), the Court emphasized the need for a substantial equality.“The notes of the petition.

5. Section 14, which allows the inclusion of 2 non-Muslim members in the composition of the Waqf State Council.

The reasons for challenge is that the introduction of non-Muslim members in the WAQF council and the Central Council of Waqf in sections 9 and 14 creates a classification that is not based on intelligible differences and does not have a rational Nexus with the object of the religious property administration.

6. The changes in section 2, in which the CEO of the Board of Directors should not be Muslim.

7. Section 36, the creation of WAQF could do orally. Now, it requires a written deed.

“The denial of the legal appeal for the non -registered WAQFs after 6 months (section 36 (10)) rises to the statutory extinguishing of the property rights without compensation. In the KT Plantation PVT.

8. Section 33, the court could remain the evacuation while waiting for the appeal. Now, the power to stay has been eliminated and a call is available against the order.

“The transfer of competences the adjudicator from the court to the executive authorities, such as the district collector (section 4) and the reduction of the courts of the Court (section 83) represents the refusal of the correct procedure. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 Air 597), this court considered that the procedure must be on Article 21 reasonable.

The petition is drawn and deposited by Adeel Ahmed, Aor, Mujeeb ur Rahman, Taqdees Fatima, Atul Yadav, Areeba Athar, Lawyers.