NEW DELHI, April 15: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider listing a fresh plea challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar took note of the submissions made by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain that a fresh plea had been filed and requested that it be listed for hearing.

“All matters where mentioning slips are given, we give dates mostly within a week,” Chief Justice Khanna remarked.

As many as 10 petitions, including one filed by AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi, are already listed for hearing on April 16 before a three-judge bench consisting of the CJI, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice K V Viswanathan.

The fresh plea, mentioned by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, was filed by Hari Shankar Jain and one Mani Munjal against the Union of India, the Ministry of Minority Affairs, and the Central Waqf Council.

The plea challenges the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended by the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. It claims that these provisions violate Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, 26, 27, and 300A of the Constitution of India, arguing that the amended law creates an “imbalance and disharmony in the Indian society” by offering “undue advantages” to the Muslim community.

It alleges that the Waqf Boards, through these legal provisions, have acquired excessive powers that have led to large-scale occupation of both government and private lands across the country.

“It is relevant to mention that the public at large in whole of the country is aggrieved from the illegal acts of taking deceitful or forcible possession of the property of individuals and the public properties, have filed more than 120 petitions in different high courts and the same are pending for adjudication,” the plea stated.

Referring to a 2025 parliamentary statement by the Union Home Minister, the plea noted a “sharp increase” in Waqf-registered land—from 18 lakh acres in 2013 to 39 lakh acres in 2025.

The statement also raised concerns over discrepancies in Waqf land records, especially regarding the disappearance of data on leased properties, the plea added.

The plea consequently seeks a declaration that non-Muslims should not be subject to the provisions of the Waqf Act and calls for directions to the Centre to recover “Gram Panchayat and other public lands” recorded as Waqf.

It also seeks recognition of the right of non-Muslims to challenge Waqf Board decisions in civil courts and calls for the striking down of several provisions of the amended law on the grounds that they are “unconstitutional.”

“It is relevant to mention that after partition in 1947 a large number of Muslim residents migrated to Pakistan. A large number of Hindus migrated to India from the newly-created territory of Pakistan leaving their valuable properties and articles. Parliament enacted Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 making provision to accommodate those migrants coming to India from Pakistan,” the plea said.

It added that the properties of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan vested in the Government of India.

“The religious character of the properties in possession of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan lost its sanctity and same no longer remained as Waqf or religious property. Therefore, the evacuee properties cannot be considered religious properties and no part of it can be handed over to Waqf Boards,” it stated.

The plea also refers to Section 3(r) of the law, which includes Shamlat Deh (Gram Panchayat land) within the definition of Waqf land.

It challenges the validity of Sections 4, 6(1), and 7(1), stating that they do not provide adequate safeguards for public participation or protection of non-Muslim interests.

Furthermore, it challenges Section 8 of the Act, which mandates state expenditure for conducting Waqf land surveys, claiming this amounts to misuse of public funds.

The plea also contests the legality of Section 28, which allows the Waqf Board to issue binding directions to district magistrates.

Additionally, the petition challenges the validity of Section 108 of the Waqf Act (prior to its repeal in 2025), which allowed for the transfer of Evacuee Properties—those abandoned during Partition—to Waqf Boards.

The petition asserts that this transfer was unconstitutional, violated property rights of displaced Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, and calls for the restoration of such properties to the Government.