Kerala Government Seeks Supreme Court Intervention on Waqf Amendment Act

Kerala's Legal Challenge to Waqf Amendment Act

The government of Kerala has approached the Supreme Court to request intervention in ongoing petitions that question the constitutional legitimacy of the Waqf Amendment Act. This move was reported on Monday.

According to the state, the revised legislation diverges from the original 1995 Waqf Act, raising concerns among Muslims that these modifications could infringe upon their fundamental rights and alter the management of waqf properties.

Kerala's plea asserts that the fears expressed by the Muslim minority regarding potential discrimination in managing religious affairs and waqf properties are valid. The state contends that several provisions within the amendment are unjust and their constitutional validity is questionable.

A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih is set to review the petitions regarding the Waqf Amendment Act's constitutionality on Tuesday.

The Union government has opposed the challenges to the law's constitutional validity, maintaining that the amendment does not infringe upon the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

In April, the Union government defended the changes to the Waqf Act in the Supreme Court, asserting that the law respects constitutional rights.

A waqf is defined as an endowment under Islamic law dedicated to religious, educational, or charitable purposes. Each state has a waqf board, which is a legal entity empowered to manage property.

The 2024 Waqf Amendment Bill proposes changes to 44 sections of the 1995 Waqf Act, including provisions for non-Muslims to serve on waqf boards, limitations on property donations, and modifications to the functioning of waqf tribunals.

This bill was approved by Parliament on April 4, received presidential assent on April 5, and came into effect on April 8.

Various parties, including the Congress and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, have contested the constitutionality of the bill in the Supreme Court.