Kapil Sibal Opposes Waqf Law Argues Five-Year Islam Practice Clause Deemed Arbitrary and Unconstitutional

Introduction

On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which was the subject of heated dispute. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, who was representing petitioners from the Muslim community, contested a number of elements that were included in the new regulations.

One of the most important aspects of his criticism was the requirement that anyone who wishes to dedicate property as a waqf must demonstrate that they have been practicing Islam for a minimum of five years. In his argument, Sibal contended that this clause breaches fundamental rights, is arbitrary, and infringes upon the freedom of religion.

Background information regarding the Waqf Amendment Act

Within the first few months of this year, the Waqf Amendment Act was passed into law, bringing about significant modifications to the management of Muslim endowments. District collectors are granted the authority to revoke waqf status in the event that properties continue to be unregistered after penalties have been imposed.

This effectively deprives unregistered endowments of their legal protection. In addition, the law allows for a majority of non-Muslim members to be included in advisory committees, which allows the government to have more control over waqf boards. It is of utmost importance that it eliminates the long-standing protections for “waqf by user,” which in the past allowed for the establishment of an endowment based solely on customary usage.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

The Most Important Legal Obstacles

Petitioners have submitted petitions to the Supreme Court in an effort to get temporary relief that will prevent the Act from being enforced. In their argument, they argued that the five-year practice rule unfairly singles out Muslims for scrutiny that is not applied to any other religion when it comes to the establishment of religious assets.

A further argument that they made was that giving a government officer the authority to adjudicate waqf issues through a process that is not judicial undermines judicial oversight and due process rules. The counsel for the Centre sought the Court to restrict the hearing to three technical questions; however, Sibal and other senior lawyers were opposed to the separation of the case into many parts.

Sibal’s Arguments Regarding the 5-Year Practice Clause in the Constitution

In his criticism of the practice requirement, Kapil Sibal said that it was an unwarranted intrusion by the state into issues of personal faith. “Who is the State to judge whether I am a Muslim?” he posed the question by asking. It brought attention to the fact that neither the Hindu nor the Christian endowment legislation requires evidence of religious practice.

Sibal stated that the enforcement of a five-year practice criterion would deny younger practitioners or converts the freedom to dedicate property in a manner that is consistent with their moral convictions. He issued a warning that this rule essentially prevents major portions of the community from exercising a basic religious liberty that is protected by the Constitution.

More General Concerns Regarding the Constitution

In addition to the practice clause, Sibal referred to the Amendment Act as a “manifestly arbitrary” scheme that was intended to acquire waqf assets through the use of administrative fiat. He made the observation that prior to the amendment, the non-registration of a waqf only resulted in a penalty and did not have any impact on the waqf’s legality.

As a result of the new rule, unregistered endowments have the potential to lose their registration altogether. This deviation from previous legal standards, according to Sibal’s argument, is a violation of both Article 14’s guarantee of equality and Article 25’s freedom of religion. It was stressed by him that the authority that district collectors have to freeze waqf status without judicial review poses a significant risk to the rule of law.

Implications for Muslim Endowments with Regard to

The laws that are being challenged have the potential to disrupt the governance of thousands of religious trusts located all throughout India if they are permitted to remain in place.

In accordance with the Amendment Act, historic landmarks such as the Taj Mahal, which were formerly categorized as waqf holdings, run the possibility of falling outside the waqf’s control.

Petitioners are concerned that this will open the door for the state to seize control of Muslim endowments or for them to be exploited for commercial purposes. A third cause for concern among community leaders is the reduction in the number of Muslim representatives serving on Central and State Waqf Boards. These individuals perceive the changes as a reduction in the rights to self-governance.

The Path Forward

It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not to give temporary relief and, eventually, whether or not to strike down the articles that are being questioned. In the event that the petitioners are successful, it has the potential to reestablish a satisfactory equilibrium between the constitutional protection of religious endowments and the essential regulatory control.

The ruling will have significant repercussions for aspects such as the rights of minority groups, the authority of administrative bodies, and the independence of religious communities. As it struggles to find solutions to these problems, the Supreme Court is confronted with the dilemma of ensuring that measures that are intended to increase transparency do not become instruments of arbitrary governmental control.