Today, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India and all State and Union Territory governments on a writ petition challenging several provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995.

The Court also tagged this petition with an earlier matter already pending before it concerning the same Act.

The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih. The petition was filed by Nikhil Upadhyay, who has sought to challenge the constitutional validity of several sections of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

At the outset, CJI Gavai questioned the maintainability of the petition due to delay. “We will dismiss on the ground of delay. You are challenging the 1995 Act in 2025. Why should challenge to 1995 Act be allowed in 2025?” he asked. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, appearing for the petitioner, responded that the 2013 amendment was also under challenge. However, the CJI reiterated concerns over the delay, saying, “Even then, 2013 to 2025—12 years. There is delay.”

Upadhyay then pointed out that the Supreme Court is already entertaining petitions filed in 2020–21 that challenge the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the Court had previously not agreed to hear a challenge to the Waqf Act, 1995, along with petitions concerning the 2025 Amendment. However, she expressed no objection to the present petition being tagged with the earlier one challenging the 1995 Act.

Following the submissions, the bench issued notice and tagged the petition with the ongoing matter. The Union government and all State/UTs have been named as respondents.

In the petition—Nikhil Upadhyay v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 502/2025—the petitioner contends that several sections of the Waqf Act violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution. The challenge has been raised against Sections 3(r), 4, 5, 6(1), 7(1), 8, 28, 29, 33, 36, 41, 52, 83, 85, 89, and 101 of the Act.

The petitioner argued that the Waqf Act is discriminatory as it creates a separate legal framework for the administration of Muslim charitable properties, while no such law exists for the religious properties of other communities. He asserted the need for a common and uniform law governing religious trusts and endowments.

Specific objections include:

• The definition of Waqf under Section 3(r), described as a "permanent dedication", which the petitioner argues is vague and beyond judicially manageable standards. He suggests this should be limited to properties acquired in accordance with law.

• The definition of Mutawalli (manager of a Waqf) is alleged to be vague and uncertain.

• The petitioner also objects to public funds being used to cover the cost of verification and survey of Waqf properties, while no similar state-sponsored surveys exist for other religious institutions.

The matter is now pending further hearing as part of the batch challenging the Waqf Act.