At SC's WAQF hearing, DMK said JPC objected to 95% of stakeholders before the modification

People held placards saying “We reject the WAQF Act 2025” at the Save WAQF Conference held by the All India Muslim Individual Law Commission at Talkatora Stadium in New Delhi on April 22, 2025. Image source: ANI

The ruling in Tamil Nadu on Sunday (May 4, 2025) DMK raised questions about the joint parliamentary committee lawsuit for the WAQF amendment, suggesting that public banners and interests may prevail during the consideration of the bill.

During the review process, about 95% of the stakeholders who appeared before the committee expressed strong opposition to the bill. The remaining 5% of the stakeholders supporting the bill represent community interests or under public banners, thus re-announcement of the representation and impartiality of the process and presentation of representation and impartiality by senior oath of office, representing the DMK, by DMKS, and presenting quality PET. Apoorv Malhotra, Lokesh Krishna and Anuradha Arputham said.

The DMK said it was simply because the WAQF (Amendment) Act (2025) has been enacted and therefore does not exempt constitutional scrutiny, especially if this would result in the display of injustice and deprivation of persons fundamental rights based on their religious identity.

Read Also | TN CM Stalin says the amendment will weaken the WAQF board of directors and its autonomy.

A special judge, led by Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, will consider the issue of a temporary suspension of the bill.

The party said that the continuation of the bill would permanently change the legal rights and status of the property, even for a limited period of time, resulting in irreversible consequences. “On the other hand, temporary accommodation will only maintain status quo and ensure that irreversible prejudice or harm is not caused until the prescribed constitutional ruling. ” said the affidavit.

The Indian Union of the Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala agreed with the DMK in another affidavit on temporary accommodation. Otherwise, it said: “The large amount of property, not limited to mosques, cemeteries, orphanages and schools across the country, will be at risk of losing their status as WAQF property and will be taken over by the Alliance Government.”

The Union Government had a “constitutional presumption” of the regulations adopted by the parliament and misplaced it and was not placed in the review when the fundamental rights were at risk, iuml, represented by advocates Haris Beeran, Usman Ghani Khan and P. Muhammad Haneef.

DMK said the center's claim to be mandatory waqf-user property registration is untenable.

“Although the works before the Mousalman WAKF Act of 1923, the WAQF Act of 1954 and the WAQF Act of 1995 (WAQF (Amendment) Act of 20025, they must provide detailed information in their knowledge, such as descriptions of property, annual income and objects, to the point where it is impossible to provide orders that there is no provision of any information. The DMK believes that the original settlers in the WAQF were created hundreds of years ago.

The petitioner argues that the 2025 bill allegedly refused to recognize waqfs by-user and forced the impossible to achieve hundreds of years of donations, which is at the heart of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

The government said opposing the full implementation of the bill, in any form of suspension, the government rampant infringement in the name of WAQF, leading to the introduction of the amendment.

The Center said that by misuse of earlier WAQF regulations, the invasion of private and government property entered into the country resulted in a 116% increase in WAQF land between 2013 and 2024, unparalleled even during the Mughal period.

On April 16, the three judges’ bench recorded the government’s assurances, neither representing any WAQF property that includes waqf by-user, nor appointing any non-Muslims under the Central WAQF Commission or the State WAQF Commission under the 2025 Act.