Discover AIMPLB’s objections to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and its implications for waqf properties in India. Learn about the constitutional and legal challenges raised in the Supreme Court.

AIMPLB Opposes Waqf Registration Requirement

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), through its General Secretary Mohammed Fazlurrahim, has raised concerns over the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. In its affidavit, AIMPLB challenges the Union Government’s claim that the new requirement for waqf registration is harmless and asserts that it undermines the legal recognition of waqfs-by-user.

Context of the Case

The Supreme Court is set to hear the case on May 5, 2025, before a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, and K. V. Viswanathan. The AIMPLB’s affidavit refutes the government’s position that historical waqf properties registered before April 8, 2025, remain unaffected by the amendment. The Union claims that registration only involves submitting basic information without requiring documentation.

Key Objections by AIMPLB

1. Legal Validity of Waqfs-by-User

AIMPLB contends that the revised Section 3(r) of the Act effectively derecognizes waqfs-by-user unless registered. This violates the principle of non-retrogression upheld in landmark cases like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. AIMPLB argues that waqfs have existed for centuries without registration being a prerequisite.

2. Historical Perspective

The Board asserts that waqf registration has never been a requirement for its creation, citing the Mussalman Wakf Act of 1923. In Mohammed Ghouse v. Karnataka Board of Wakfs, the courts rejected claims that registration was necessary for waqf validity.

3. Discriminatory Implications

AIMPLB argues that the amendment discriminates between registered and unregistered waqfs. This contradicts the intent of previous waqf regulations, including the Waqf Act of 1995, which emphasized recognition without making registration mandatory.

Challenges to Government Claims

AIMPLB highlights inconsistencies in the Union’s counter-affidavit. The government’s acknowledgment of “removing statutory protection to waqfs-by-user” is contradictory to its subsequent denial of such implications. The Board emphasizes that non-registration should not invalidate waqfs, as historically, only the mutawalli’s failure to register has attracted penalties.

Constitutional Concerns

The amendment’s prospective application does not address the broader implications for user-recognized waqfs. AIMPLB argues that:

• The removal of waqfs-by-user’s recognition violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
• Section 36(7A) enables government claims to supersede waqf registration, further jeopardizing waqf properties.

Conclusion

AIMPLB maintains that the Waqf (Amendment) Act undermines the historical and legal foundation of waqfs in India. It asserts that registration should not be a precondition for waqf recognition and calls for the Court to address the discriminatory and unconstitutional aspects of the amendment.